Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould a woman have the right to choose abortion?
Results so far:
| Yes | 71% | 3966 votes | Total: 5609 votes | |
| No | 29% | 1643 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould a woman have the right to choose abortion? That's really the wrong question to ask, because a woman does have the right to choose abortion. The question is whether or not that right should be taken away.
A Pro-life advocate would have us believe that there are McAbortion clinics on every street corner and that women line up for abortions as casually as they'd line-up for a sale on shoes. The truth is that clinics where abortions are performed primarily treat pregnant women who choose to carry their babies to term and provide necessary pre-natal care for them. That, right! Given the choice between having a child and having an abortion, most women choose to have a child.
Instead of dumbing down this debate with platitudes, we should admit that this is really a human rights issue more than it's an issue of morality. Perhaps we should acknowledge that "pro-choice" doesn't automatically mean "pro-abortion." What it does mean is that we, as human beings have a right to make decisions about our own bodies, for good or for ill, that our government and our neighbors have no right to interfere with.
As a legal matter, a woman should be thought of as a sovereign country. If a country was suddenly told by its neighboring countries that it no longer had the right to govern itself, most of us would probably agree that such a country would have the right to defend its sovereignty. Why should we think of a woman any differently. She has the right to say, "Yes," and she has the right to say "no." She has the right to protest and the right to remain silent. She has the right to have a child or not to have a child.
Or, consider the matter another way. What if the right to choose was outlawed? Suppose in the future we found ourselves overpopulated with dramatic food shortages. Since in this future we've already set the legal precedent that an individual has no rights over their own bodies, what's to stop a future government from overturning a ban against abortion and make abortions mandatory? What if the opposite were true and the human race started to die-off? By that same legal principle, what's to stop a future government from rounding up women and forcing them to have children? Does this sound like bad science fiction to you? Does it sound absurd? The funny thing is, when the government starts chipping away at your rights, the absurd has a way of becoming reality.
Learn more about this author, John Erianne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
A woman already has a right to choose, she has a right to choose whether or not to engage in an activity that can potentially cause her to become impregnated. In fact she has several choices she makes before she can even become impregnated. With the current state of contraceptive technology and the number of options available both before and during sexual intercourse there is no reason a woman should be at risk of becoming impregnated.
Putting aside for a moment the choices on both the male and females side as far as birth control, the woman must actively choose to engage in sexual intercourse. In todays society, it is nearly impossible to not understand the consequences of doing so, from pregnancy to sexually transmitted diseases.
A woman has a right to choose her method of contraception. Numerous methods and alternatives are currently available in this area to offer a wide selection of options. Secondly she has the right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity which could lead to pregnancy. Thirdly she has the right to choose the male with whom she will engage in activity, how the activity is to take place and whether or not her partner will also employ a contraceptive. At this point the woman has exhausted all of her choices.
If the woman becomes pregnant at this point, she certainly has no right to choose to destroy the child she conceived through her series of choices. I'm baffled as to how someone could even think otherwise. This is no different then deciding after you child is two years old and you can't cope with them any more to simply eliminate them.
People in society today are too quick to point the finger at someone else when it comes to assuming responsibility for our actions. It's always someone else's fault when something bad happens to us, despite what choices we made leading up to the consequences that caused the issue. Abortion is simply the ultimate shirking of responsibilities.
Hav ing been a parent who not once, but twice encountering conception issues when trying to have a child I have a unique perspective on just how miraculous the conception and birth of a child is. To squander such a miracle with an abortion is the ultimate abomination to everything sacred in the world.
While I do have strong views on the subject, I'm not totally blind to the unfortunate circumstances that our twisted society can produce these days. As with any rule, there are exceptions to this rule in which abortion should be legal. However, they are exceptions only. These exceptions would be instances in which the woman was robbed of her right to make the choices leading up to conception. Whether this be in the form of defective contraception or in the case of rape victims becoming impregnated, some allowances must be made. However, we must also keep in mind that there are other alternatives to abortion that are much more palatable to society in general.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Whalen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Constitutional & Contract Law
- Should religion be banned from all public places?
- Should the Internet be monitored and taxed by the government?
- Do you believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms?
- Should religious organizations be prevented from participating in politics?
- Does the US Patriot Act undermine Americans' freedoms?
- Should the government have the right to require a background check before you can purchase a firearm?
