Although abortion is legal in the United States, there is a strong belief that it should be illegal due to its perceived equivalence to murder, which is against the law. The definition of abortion involves intentionally ending a pregnancy within the first 28 weeks, but this oversimplifies the complexities surrounding matters of life and death and fails to acknowledge the lives lost during this procedure in the womb. Some argue that abortion should be classified as murder because a fetus is a living entity and being alive includes the ability to grow, which occurs inside a pregnant woman’s body. Abortion stops this growth process and eliminates the potential for human life.
Supporters of making abortion illegal highlight that it was previously forbidden by medical professionals who took the Hippocratic Oath – an oath historically sworn by doctors. However, pro-choice advocates successfully had this paragraph removed from the Oath’s text later on. Opponents of abortion firmly believe that it should only be allowed when extreme harm or danger threatens the mother’s well-being. Doctors should not perform an operation previously prohibited by their professional pledge – known as the Hippocratic Oath – which all physicians take when starting their medical practice. Even in the past, society considered abortion to be a terrible act against humanity.
Both the traditional and original versions of the Hippocratic Oath previously prohibited providing abortive remedies or pessaries for abortions, but these statements have been removed. However, doctors are still expected to save lives (“Evolution of Medical Ethics”). Before the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was illegal in 30 out of 50 states in the US. After 1973, all states were legally permitted to perform abortions. Despite this, there are still advocates calling for abortion to be made illegal again (“Abortion is every woman’s right”). The controversy surrounding terminating a pregnancy has existed since its introduction. Supporters of women’s equal rights argue that women should have control over their bodies and reproductive lives. According to socialistworker.org, women have the right to control their own bodies regardless of any entity like courts dictating what they can or cannot do with them. This aligns with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1973 “Roe Vs.Wade” case which affirmed women’s autonomy and complete control over their own bodies. This decision has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court since then (“Abortion is every woman’s right”). However, those who support pro-life argue that abortion is equivalent to murder as it involves killing a fetus. Although women have autonomy when it comes to choices regarding their bodies, it is generally believed that abortion is ethically unacceptable unless specific situations arise.If the pregnancy is a result of violent acts such as rape, adoption may be considered instead of abortion if there are potential risks to the health of either the mother or the baby.
Supporters of the pro-choice movement argue that it is reasonable for young women who are unable to provide for their babies to choose abortion, as even experienced mothers find pregnancy highly stressful. This is especially true for a woman who is still a child herself. Thus, if these women believe they cannot give their babies a good life, advocates of pro-choice consider it justifiable for them to opt for abortion. However, opponents frequently suggest that adoption would be a better option in such circumstances.
To illustrate this point, I have a friend who became pregnant at the age of 14 while she and the baby’s father were high school students. Neither of them had jobs or were old enough to work and support themselves. Realizing they wouldn’t be able to afford food and medical care for their baby and not wanting to rely on welfare assistance, my friend made the difficult decision to have an abortion. She still questions whether it was the right choice but believed it was better for her own well-being since she lacked sufficient means to properly care for the child.
Choosing to have an abortion at this point in a woman’s life can have serious emotional consequences. It is believed that the mental risks are higher compared to the stress of giving birth. However, if adoption is considered as an alternative from the beginning, it would lead to a more favorable outcome for both the mother and the baby. Deciding on adoption removes the difficult choice between life and death, preventing feelings of guilt or thoughts of committing murder later in life when she fully understands how her choices impact someone else’s life.
Typically, terminating the life of a fetus is considered morally wrong, unless there is a high risk to the mother. However, some argue that women should have the right to make decisions regarding their baby’s uncertain health during pregnancy. Continuing with a risky pregnancy could jeopardize the woman’s well-being and result in long-term illness for the baby. But what if pre-pregnancy tests are inaccurate and the baby is actually healthy? Ending the life of an unaffected baby would be a risk many might not take. Women with diabetes before pregnancy face higher risks of birth defects compared to non-diabetic mothers (Donya, 2008). This suggests that if a woman has a pre-existing heart condition, proceeding with pregnancy puts both her and the baby at risk. In such cases, advocates for reproductive choice argue that abortion is justifiable. On the other hand, proponents of the right to life believe fetal death is harmful and assert fetuses deserve equal rights as any other human being.
Stone opposes abortion because he believes it causes harm to the fetus and violates its right to life. He contends that aborting a fetus deprives it of conscious goods that are inherent in its existence. However, if a woman’s health is at risk or there is a potential for birth defects, the ultimate decision on abortion lies with the mother. It is crucial to acknowledge that there is no absolute certainty regarding birth defects in babies. Sometimes parents expect severe birth defects but end up having a perfectly healthy child, and vice versa.
Despite advancements in technology, there is no guarantee on the outcome of a child’s birth. When birth defects are anticipated, parents may consider options such as abortion. However, I firmly believe that all creatures are valuable and should not be discarded regardless of circumstances. My Uncle had Down Syndrome and was perfect to us; we saw him as an Earthly Angel and would not have changed anything about him. Hence, I strongly assert that abortions are morally wrong and can be seen as murder.
I acknowledge women’s right to control their bodies; however, it is crucial to recognize that murder is against the law; hence, abortion can be considered an act of murder. Moreover, certain situations may warrant abortion if the pregnancy poses significant risks to the mother’s health. Additionally, women who have been victims of rape should have the choice to opt for abortion. Nonetheless, it is vital for them to receive counseling and consider adoption before making a decision.
Pro-lifers hold unwavering beliefs viewing abortion as morally unacceptable. Nevertheless, in today’s society, ultimate decision-making power lies with individual women regarding what they perceive as best for themselves and their unborn children – even if this leads to terminating pregnancy through abortion.
Works Cites
Sharon Smith. “Abortion is every woman’s right.” Socialistworker 23 April 2004. Accessed on 13 March 2009 .
According to Stretton (2004), the deprivation argument against abortion is discussed in his article published in Bioethics. The article is available in the Academic Search Complete database through EBSCO. The citation for the article is as follows: Stretton, Dean. “The Deprivation Argument Against Abortion.” Bioethics 18.2 (Apr. 2004): 144-180.
Currie, Donya. “Pre-pregnancy diabetes increases the chance of birth defects.” The National’s Health 38.8 (October 2008): 21-21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 28 February 2009.
J. Stone argues in the article “Why Potentiality Matters” published in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy (1987) that potentiality holds significant importance. Stone’s viewpoint is explored in detail in pages 815-830.
The “Evolution of Medical Ethics” is a classic Hippocratic Oath that explores the principles of Medical Ethics. It can be found on the Medical Ethics website and was accessed on November 1, 2013.
