One of many societal and controversial issues is abortion which is debated nationwide. What happens commonly in America, is that citizens choose to be pro-life or pro-choice. In the midst of our current situation, the influence of Donald J Trump raises the question amongst society which is: should abortion be illegal? Though the legality of abortion is a persistent debate in our society, I still stand firm in my belief that women should have the power of choice with all due respect and a vague understanding of the other arguments. Some claims against abortion include that abortion is wrong because its equivalent to murder and that abortion can cause psychological trauma. In the essay I will outline counter arguments that decode the claims of both sides.
For those who don’t know, abortion is a process in which the pregnancy stage is ended intentionally. This essentially means life no longer develops in the womb and this is the only way someone can reverse the process of pregnancy. There are two main types of abortion. The first type of producing an abortion is through the ingestion of a pill. This pill is called mifepristone. The pill must be prescribed by a doctor and the symptoms are almost always worse than getting surgical abortion (type 2). Surgical abortion is the process of sucking the fetus from the womb. This abortion option is also referred to as aspiration as said in volume 62 issue 3 of The Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health. These options definitely depend on geographical region; but, in America, these options are primary. Other types of abortion included are produced through the process of acupressure. This process is considered as a natural and less expensive alternative.
The next most important part of the topic is the two main arguments; pro-life versus pro-choice. People who stand on the side of pro-life simply believe in anti-abortion. These citizens support following through with each and every pregnancy unless death is caused naturally. An example of this is tragedy and birth defects passed by the mother during the most dangerous cycle during pregnancy. People who are pro-choice believe in the dynamics of birth and raising a child. These people also consider the wrongful processes of impregnating a woman or girl which includes rape and child molestation.
127 our experts are availableright now
To go into depth on viewpoint A (pro-life), the main argument is that upon the fertilization of an egg, a life is created. In a popular source titled: The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences, Rob Schwarzwalder said “At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. Zygote is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the Morula and Blastocyst stages.” This essentially outlines the biggest and most persuasive argument for being anti-abortion. This factor is major in determining law policies as of 2018.
Also outlined in many essays and included in Schwartzwalders essay, many ask the questions: is the Zygote human? Does the cell have human life? Is it simply a cell or is it a literal being? These are the most credible and digging questions and Schwartzwalder provides clear cut answers.
Now, I will outline the major premise of the argument that states this cell (zygote) at the earliest stage in pregnancy does have life. Schwartzwalder said “The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.” He is pointing out that in his own views and by his perspective, the zygote is clearly the embodiment of human life. He further develops this claim by acknowledging the fact that this cell has a genetic makeup of its own. It is once and for all gifted genes that are independent of the carrier. This new composition is totally distinct from any person who has ever existed. Schwartzwalder outlines this fact to disprove a claim commonly used to support pro-choice which states: the choice of abortion has to do with a woman and her body solely and suggests that the choice has nothing to do with the woman; but rather a new life.
Also, the DNA in this new life form is “a complete design, guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits” as stated by Schwartzwalder. This proves that the stages fulfill a major guideline in determine the distinction between human and not human. Critics of pro-choice battle with the argument that there is no life in the early cell form by implying that It is extremely “clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive.” According the the four criteria used in determining life biologically, these early embryos do fulfill them. Metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction are seen in these early forms thus proving the necessary.
To answer the last question:, is the human zygote only an introduced or advanced cell or “is it a human organism”? According to science, an organism (by definition) is a dynamic makeup of overlapping elements used to produce the action of life through functionally independently with “mutually dependent organs” Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependant organs. In this respect, the zygote cell fulfills this definition very readily and upon formation the cell jumpstarts a complex timeline of points to prepare for a pattern of events necessary in forthgoing and development.
Schwartzwalder closes by saying “The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism. By contrast, while a mere collection of human cells may carry on the activities of cellular life, it will not exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards a higher level of organization. Thus, the scientific evidence is quite plain: at the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new entity comes into existence which is distinctly human, alive, and an individual organism – a living, and fully human, being.” This shows that pro-lifers are flawed in their view of dynamic as apprised to the other arguers. The only way pro-lifers see termination of pregnancy is if the death was accidental.
In the instance that Abortion is deemed illegal, pro-choicers can assure you that women will always attempt to obtain abortions unlawfully. At Pregnant Pause online, Jay Johansen says “Many are likely to end up at back-alley butchers or attempt to perform abortions on themselves and suffer serious injury.”
Pro-Choicers could debate this point by matter of fact. Abortion was once illegal in this country and, mostly all illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors in secret. In relative reality, not many women were injured. Not many women were killed either. Johansen says “In 1972, the last year before abortion was legalized, 39 women died from illegal abortions. That’s 39 tragedies, of course. But with legal abortion today, many women are still injured and some die in botched abortions. If abortion was illegal, fewer women would have abortions, so the total number of injuries and deaths might well go down.“ Johansen works to question the emotional and moral stance of counter arguers.
In the eyes of pro-choice believers, it is simple that If abortion is outlawed, more unwanted children will be born, a pattern is commonly seen that these unwanted kids are likely to be abused and abandoned by their parents. Johansen argues that “It is better for such children to never be born than to live such a miserable existence.” How could pro-lifers argue this great debate when their major premise is based on whether or not a fetus is a life? The question is the most digging and persuasive. To tug more at the thought process of arguers, it is a fact versus opinion that child abuse is certainly a horrendous epidemic that isn’t needy of addition to the issue. Johansen says “I have seen cases where children were attacked with knives, doused with caustic chemicals, crushed, starved, even literally had their arms or legs ripped off.” In even the most mild scenario, stopping the making of a life is better than tampering with an already set agenda of life and goals.
The forms of abuse outlined in the last paragraph our essentially methods of abortion. So Johansen outlines that any person arguing pro-life essentially says that as a society, we “should subject a child to abuse so severe that he dies a horrible, painful death, in order to protect him from the possibility of suffering uncertain, unspecified, potential abuse in the future” and this is extremely irrational, unethical, and not sensible. In facts Johansen says it’s “bizarre” To increase support of the argument ready this quote and think about the question “Suppose someone pointed out to you that with the increasing crime rate, there is a growing chance that someday you might be mugged, kidnapped, murdered, or otherwise victimized. Would you think that a good solution to this danger would be to be tortured to death today to avoid the possibility of being the victim of such a crime in the future?” There has been substantial evidence proving how unequivocal the arguments posed against abortion is. This includes the fact that the child abuse rates have ironically gone up according to studies.
Next is the fact that some women become pregnant after being raped by way of incest or mere crime. It is not debatable that these women are who become pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest are victims of an extremely violent and unjust crime under no circumstance to be acceptant of. Even though pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is not likely in most scenarios, there is not a way or taking away the facts that pregnancy will happen in some instances. Bioethicist Andrew Varga summarizes the argument from rape and incest in the following way: “It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman’s mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman’s integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases.”
Despite its very manipulative strings being pulled at the strings of our hearts through his argument, there are are a plethora of issues noticed in this argument as noted by Francis J Beckwith. The primary issue is that the argument is not relevant to the specific circumstance at hand. The position that pro-choicest make is that woman have a right to prefer abortion for any given reason since they are in possession of the life they carry. Whether these women follow through for the reason that they were raped, they did not want the gender of the baby or their circumstance prohibits life as a financial option. Though a woman is handy the hardships of body disfigurement and risks and potential death through pregnancy, she is also gifted their responsibility to decide the destiny of this new life.
Beckwith says “to argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital.” She also points at another counter argument that says “an exception does not establish a general rule and Second, since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse, pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives immediate medical treatment.”
Most say that Pro-lifers are seen as hypocritical in an everyday conversation. These arguers ration that they are against abortion since they believe life is sacred, but on the other hand, they are in favor of capital punishment. I find this to be flimsy since not all pro-lifers are in favor of capital punishment. Since many do though, let’s examine this issue upfront. Johansen says “Abortion is killing of an innocent baby because his existence causes social problems to someone else. Capital punishment is killing a person who has been convicted of a serious crime, usually murder. There is a vast difference between killing an innocent person because this somehow benefits you, and killing a guilty person as punishment for his crimes, or to deter others who might consider committing similar crimes.” And I can approve of her stance.
In essence, the arguments for pro-choice in my findings were not evident enough. Though I still stand firm in my belief, there is far more evidence based on science to back the claims of arguers for pro-life. Both arguers fight for the same thing essentially. Both arguers fight for the morale and ethics behind their reasoning and in the most extreme cases on each side, both decisions can be wrong and both decisions can be right. It is all a matter of circumstance. As a woman, it is highly advised that you heavily consider the debate before being impregnated. The only right answer is that an impulsive decision is never okay. Again this is an argument of the woman’s life versus the fetus. What choice will you make?
