Should Abortions Be Legalized or Not? Article Review Example

Abortion is defined as the forcible removal of a developing baby (fetus) from the womb of his or her mother, using mechanical, surgical, or chemical means. Simply put it is the termination of pregnancy. Since the Supreme Court made a ruling in 1973 in favor of abortion, a heated debate has been on air on whether abortion should be legalized or not. On one side of the debate are the pro-life who disregard it in total and the pro-choice sit on the other supporting the act. The tussle is supported by different views and opinions from both sides and it is apparent that the issue of abortion is a matter of national interest. This paper evaluates both sides of the debate and concludes by elaborating why abortion should be adopted. It is presumed that although both sides have points to drive, a critical evaluation can enable one to settle on one side.

Considering the pro-choice and the pro-life movements, one can easily deduce that they are examples of political and moral framing with each team strongly defining its philosophy and downsizing those of the rival group. However, some important arguments can be obtained from these groups that can enable one to critically review the issue and make an autonomous decision. The pro-life are mainly concerned in bringing back legal protection to innocent human life and in this case the unborn. Their argument is that human fetuses and embryos are persons with right to live. The pro-choice on the other hand claim that women should have the right to control their fertility and whether to terminate or continue with pregnancy is a matter of their choice.

In their argument the pro-life members ascertain that the value of human life should be recognized from implantation or conception until natural death. This implies that from conception, a fetus should be regarded as human being and they should be allowed to grow and be born without any interference. Therefore, abortion contravenes this right to life and should be rejected in total. To support their arguments, they usually cite church teachings which also prohibit the act. For instance, the Catholic Church is firm on the issue and regards abortion as a grave sin that contravenes the natural law.

Another argument by the group is that abortion is morally wrong and degrades societal values. They claim that legalizing abortion will encourage people to engage freely in adultery, fornication or prostitution since they know there will be a way out incase of a pregnancy. Such acts are immoral and they can tarnish the societal fabric. On morality, they argue that encouraging abortion makes people loose the dignity of life and making killing a common act.

Lastly, pro-life members state that abortion is a great risk to women. To support their point, they cite cases which have been reported of women breeding to death due to abortion or ending up with some serious health complications. According to their statement, legalizing abortion will see many quacks practicing for money putting the life of their clients at risk. To prevent such sad occurrences therefore, it is wise according to them to abolish abortion.

Although simple and coherent, the idea of comparing a fetus to a human lacks scientific backing. Scientifically, a fertilized egg is regarded as a protozoan with a human genetic code in the nucleus. The idea of having a human genetic code does not guarantee it to be called a human since nearly all cells in the human body have this code and cannot be regarded as humans. Moreover, although this protozoan develops into a human, it is hard to tell when it crosses the line between animal life and human life. Therefore, fetuses are not human and can be seen as ‘growths’ in human bodies, a point pro-life member misses.

It is an open secret that people back various religious and non-religious persuasions with some being pagans and atheists. This means that arguments centered on certain religious believe can not hold for all people. If Catholics or any other religion rebukes abortion, it is unfair to push it down peoples’ throats that it is bad. For instance, Buddhists believe that although abortion is evil, it can be repented and the aborted child is actually reborn and not permanently destroyed. For Buddhists therefore, abortion is not a serious evil. Other non-religious beliefs might also support abortion and it is necessary to respect them since there is the freedom of association.

When pro-life members reject abortion, they overlook some critical instances. What if the mothers’ health is at risk, would they support it? Or what should happen to a pregnancy got out of rape or incest? If they can accept abortion in such situations, it is clear that there are double standards in their claims. It can also be interpreted to mean that fetuses do not have total right to life. To avoid such ambiguity, the issue should be left wholly for the mothers to decide. There is nothing wrong with conducting an abortion if the mothers’ health is at risk. If anything it is respecting the right to life of a living human being. If a mother is not allowed to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, such a pregnancy might torment her psychologically and even if she bears the child, she might never appreciate that child. The sight of the child will be a constant reminder to what she underwent. It is therefore apparent that such a decision is better placed on mothers’ hands.

Before support of abortion by the Supreme Court, many women actually died or got health complications after trying to secure an abortion in the backstreets. After the support, the situation reversed and the many reported cases of death or health complications declined. This means that prohibiting abortion is not a solution since those who want will still have it and allowing it is providing a safe means to those who wish to do it. It is like the case of beer or cigarettes. Although it is known that they are a health risk, it is hard to ban them since the habits are driven by individuals’ self interests, individuals who have rights to do whatever is best for them. In another dimension, people can not force a person to stick in a marriage that is not working just because divorce is bad. People in a relationship usually have the right to decide whether to stick in the relationship or not and the decision is personal. The issue of abortion should also be handled in the same manner.

Having a child is a personal choice and no one decides on the other whether to have the child or not. A pregnancy directly affects the woman’s body, personal health, and future. It is clear therefore, that women should also be extended the right to decide whether to continue carrying the pregnancy or not the same way they decided to do so. Such a decision will go along with promoting individual liberty and reproductive rights of women. Those who oppose the move do it on malicious grounds without considering the rights of women. As in other cases affecting individuals directly whereby individuals are allowed to make their autonomous decisions, abortion should be left as an issue for mothers to decide. If they find it wise to do so, their decision should not be subjected to legal constrains and therefore abortion should be legalized.