1 Li Julie Mullen English Comp 3 13 December 2007 Abortion and the Fundamental Right to Choose In 1973, the pivotal United States Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, established that a woman have the right to abort up until the moment that the fetus becomes viable. Viability is the ability to live without the environment of a mother's womb, even if artificial support is required. Abortion has always been a controversial issue that pits the rights of the mother against the rights of her unborn child. An immeasurable number of questions arise, including the ethical "Is it wrong to destroy life?" and "Do we trample on the fundamental right to live when an abortion is performed?" According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is not the destruction of the life of a fetus unless it is able to survive in an extrauterine environment. This reasonably helps distinguish the line that separates an individual with its own rights from a being without rights that is dependent on its mother. Despite the Roe v. Wade decision, there still exist factions that condemn the choice to abort and claim that abortion is equivalent to murder. However, they disregard the health complications (mental and physical), financial issues, and social problems that may arise should an unprepared woman choose to keep her child instead of abort. Furthermore, they overlook the fact that outlawing abortion will not prevent all abortions from taking place. According to a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, conducted by Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in the United States and colleagues from the World
Li 2 Health Organization, "women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, along with the fact that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe." Without the government's support for abortion, illegal abortions such as "backalley" abortions will nevertheless take place, endangering the lives of the individuals involved. A woman's right to choose whether she desires to have an abortion or not is a fundamental right that should never be taken away. We cannot ever decide for an individual. We must let her decide for herself. In the controversial debate regarding abortion, a woman's health is generally of the greatest concern. Denise James, M.D, an assistant professor at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, refers to the act of aborting before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health as therapeutic abortion, as opposed to elective abortion, defined as abortion based on choice. One reason why women choose to have an abortion is that their health might be endangered if they continue with a pregnancy. James observes that the ratio of elective to therapeutic abortions and conclude maternal health is generally vulnerable: US statistics indicate that the vast majority of abortions are elective. Therapeutic abortion is rare. The ability to define therapeutic abortion performed for maternal indications is difficult because of the subjective nature of decisions made about potential morbidity and mortality in pregnant women. A variety of medical
Li 3 conditions in pregnant women have the potential to affect health and cause complications that may be life-threatening. Such instances include the onset of preeclampsia, or pregnancy-induced hypertension, which may lead to eclampsia, a serious complication that would lead to elevated blood pressure and frequent convulsions. The only treatments for this would be either to continue with the delivery and risk developing dangerous and possibly fatal symptoms, or have an abortion performed. Other instances where a woman's life might be endangered include lack of physical preparation, meaning that she might not be healthy to begin with and the drainage of resources by the fetus would overwhelm her, and if multiple births would pose a risk. Abortion does not concern merely the physical health of a woman. The decision to have an abortion is largely influenced by a woman's own personal belief and mental health. A portion of such abortions, or elective abortions, involves the discovery that the fetus would develop into a child with genetic disorders or medical defects. A woman may feel that she doesn't want her fetus to grow into a child burdened with defects and face a tough life and would rather prevent its birth. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest also comprise a portion of elective abortions. Women who fall under this category consider abortion as an attempt to erase associated memories of trauma instead of going through with the birth and facing a burden with no preparation at all. "At least 9,100 abortions each year are attributed to pregnancies that occur because of forced sexual intercourse," according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. However, nearly none of these
Li 4 have received any federal aid, forcing women to cope with the previously unexpected newborn. Anti-abortion movements often exaggerate the complications result that from having an abortion performed, referring to it as post-abortion traumatic stress syndrome. However, it is not recognized as a medical syndrome, either by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. Furthermore, after an interview with 188 Canadian women who had a legal therapeutic abortion nine months prior, E.R. Greenglass of the Department of Psychology at York University concluded that psychological side-effects of abortions were virtually non-existent: Out of 27 psychological scales, differences between the abortion and control groups were found on only 3: in general, women who had had abortions were more rebellious than control women, abortion tended to be associated with somewhat greater depression in married women, and single women who had had abortions scored higher on the shallow-affect scale. However, all the personality scores were well within the normal range. Also, the allegations that abortions are many times more dangerous than childbirth are but a myth. Medicine has improved tremendously, especially since the advent of penicillin. Between 1973 and 1997, the mortality rate associated with legal abortion dropped from 4.1 to 0.6 per 100,000 abortions (Elam-Evans). Evidently, deaths resulting from abortions are dwindling as women seeking abortions have access to legal and
Li 5 reliable services. If abortions were absolutely illegal, there would still be just as many abortions. The only difference would be the number of lives lost. The pro-life movement might argue that the future potential contributions to society by an unborn child are destroyed the moment its life is terminated via abortion. However, we must remind ourselves the actuality cannot be confused with potentiality. We must not base our arguments on what is potential, but instead on that which is actual. A woman faced with the decision to abort or not is an actual being, so it is up to her to decide that which is good for herself. According to Steven Levitt, professor in Economics at Chicago, and Stanford University's John Donohue III, the decline of the U.S. crime rate may be the result of two mechanisms related to legalized abortion: First, following the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, more women at risk of having children who could later engage in criminal activity-- teenagers, those living in poverty or those with unwanted pregnancies, for example--opted for abortion. And second, improved maternal, familial or fetal circumstances may have led to better environments for raising children. When it comes to making the choice to abort, poverty plays very powerful role. A woman must question whether she can support a child and provide a positive environment for its upbringing or else risk giving birth to a child who would someday steal just to satisfy his or her hunger. She must judge whether her own personal life and future are compromised or not; otherwise, she may very well fall into a cycle of persistent poverty and suffering.
Li 6 The right to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion allows those with financial difficulties an alternate path to obtain or sustain an enjoyable life. It is a common misconception that pro-choice support abortion on all its aspects. Contrary to the implication that since the opposition is dubbed pro-life, pro-choice is equivalent to pro-death, the pro-choice movement merely supports the right for a woman to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. Freedom for people is analogous to reproductive freedom for a woman; an individual woman should make her own choice. According to pro-abortion sources, courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning, 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). Even though it is obvious that the majority of abortions are elective, we cannot quickly jump to conclusions and assume that the cause is solely inconvenience. We cannot assume that women are no longer responsible, but that dire times call for dire measures. We must face the fact that women, especially young women, should have the chance to realize that they are not mature enough to have a child, that they are not able to care for a child, or that attempting it would compromise their future. It is apparent that some facts remain unclear, such as the fact that laws have never and probably never will completely stop abortions but, instead, direct them to back-alley butchers. To understand the experience that a woman has to go through when faced with the decision to abort or not is fundamental to understanding the issue of abortion as a
Li 7 whole. According to American birth control activist Margaret Higgins Sanger, who brought birth control to America, "No woman can call herself free who does not own or control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."