Politics, News & Issues >
Constitutional & Contract Law
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould a woman have the right to choose abortion?
Results so far:
| Yes | 71% | 3962 votes | Total: 5603 votes | |
| No | 29% | 1641 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThis is another issue that I have mixed feelings about. The main reason is that I am an adopted child. I was born in early 1967, in Los Angeles, and given what was going on in the country, and that city, at the time, I could very well have ended up never being born. So, it should be obvious to most of you that I might be against abortion.
But, the truth is, I'm not. While I personally dislike the practice, and I believe that the Supreme Court should have ruled differently on the issue, I do not see, now, how we can just overturn that decision. Undoubtedly, the states would then move to make their own laws. While this may be a better solution than what currently exists, what we would end up with would be a patchwork of laws where some states would ban the practice, and others would not.
Whether or not you think this might be a good thing, the truth of the matter is that it would be discriminatory. Women in some states would have to go to another in order to have the procedure performed and no matter how you look at it, that is discriminatory. Women who choose to have the abortion have a right to have their friends and family close by afterwards. And this is true no matter how you believe on the issue.
Now, I may be a man, but I have been involved in one woman's decision to have the procedure performed. The story is rather simple. A friend of mine went to visit her fiance in Germany while he was serving in the United States Armed Forces and was stationed there. He had time left to go on his deployment before he would return to the states and they could get married, and neither of them was ready yet to bring a child into the world. Unfortunately, she became pregnant during that visit and after discussing it with her husband to be, they decided that the best thing would be to terminate the pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood prefers that women planning to have the procedure performed come with a friend or family member that can take them home afterward. A sensible precaution, obviously, and a service that I was willing to provide for my friend when she asked. After parking the car, and starting across the street toward the front door, we were accosted by a lone protester outside the grounds of the building.
He began by shouting at me these words, "Daddy! Don't kill me Daddy!". As you can imagine, I was not happy about this, given the fact that I was not the father of the child. We ignored him and got my friend inside and registered, then I went back out to confront this protester. Now, I do believe that Americans have a right to protest those things they don't believe in, but I also believe there is a proper time and place to do so. And outside a building where the procedure is being performed is most definitely the wrong place.
Women who have made the decision to to have an abortion already have enough on their minds. I don't believe that any of them are truly happy with the decision, but they have thought long and hard on the issue and have come the decision that is best for them. They don't need someone who has no idea what is happening in their lives second guessing their decision. Do these people really believe that their indignation gives them the right to accost these women, or the men who accompany them?
I related this story so that the reader would know that while I've never been in a position where a girlfriend or wife of mine had to make this decision, I have been close to it, and actually more than once. And I do believe that both those women made the correct decision at the time, even if I was against it personally. And I would defend their right to do so, every time, to the death.
The fact of the matter is this....It has been over 20 years since women were given the RIGHT to choose for themselves. Taking away that privilege now would be very close to taking the drivers license of a 40 year old woman, even though she had done nothing to deserve such treatment. There are, without a doubt, some situations where it would be, and could be done, and no one would think twice about it. But, if she has not killed someone while driving drunk, or a few other nasty things along those lines, would any of us sit still for such treatment? No, of course not.
But, this is exactly what the "Right to Lifers" want to do with the abortion issue. They want to take away a privilege that women have had for over 20 years, without a good reason.
Oh, I know they would argue that, but their argument would fall on deaf ears if made to me. I refuse to listen to anyone who protests this issue due to the treatment I received from a lone protester so many years ago. And I was actually on his side when he angered me as he did. I was still trying to change my friend's mind right up to the point when we got to Planned Parenthood. Another fact that this protester did not know.
I still don't know if I truly believe that women should have an abortion, but I do believe that a woman should have the right to choose that option if she so desires. We men do not have to go through the physical process and, therefore, have no right to interdict ourselves into the middle of the discussion. It is an issue that should be decided upon only by women.
So, I say to you, man or woman, Pro Life or Pro Choice, take a step back and THINK about this for a moment. At this time, this issue is no longer about whether abortions should be legal or not. It is now an issue of whether or not we have the right to take this privilege from those who have every right to make such decisions on their own.
Learn more about this author, Steven Gadberry.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Abortion is one of the hot button issues of our day. There are few other topics that will escalate as quickly as abortion. Why is this? In large part, the reason that this topic spirals out of control so quickly is that it has so often been couched in terms of "rights." As Americans, we have been conditioned over and over that we must defend our rights. Perhaps the best illustration of the is is the centrality of the United Stated Bill of Rights which spells out the rights of every American with regard to the federal government. A similar example can be found in the Magna Carta of Great Britain. In each case, these documents dictate who is in control. Literally, who has the power of choice of a person's life.
This is also the case in the abortion rights debate. This can be observed in the slogans of those in favor of abortion rights such as "A Woman's Right to Choose" or "Pro-Choice." Even the very statement of the debate question couches the issue in these terms. Therefore, it is critical to quantify who are the parties involved, what choices are at issue, and who has the right to make those choices?
First, who are the parties involved in the debate? Most people on both sides would agree that that there are at least two parties involved in the decisions to be made: the mother and living being that she carries. Whether or not one acknowledges the living being carried by the mother as a person deserving of rights will be discussed below. At this point it is sufficient to acknowledge that there are two living parties involved in the discussion.
Second, what are the choices at issue? Some would say that the choice is whether or not a woman chooses to carry a child to term or not. This certainly part of the issue. However, what of the choices of the living being carried by the mother. What choices would they make, given the opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot know what decisions they would make because of their currently dependent condition. This then begs the question of whether this truly a matter of choice or not. Whose choices should prevail and why?
This brings us to the question of rights. If there are choices to be made, who has the right to make those choices? Historically, the matter of rights has arisen in defense of those without the power to choose. In the case of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, the rights of the common person were defined in opposition to tyrannical abuses by monarchs. Some in favor of abortion rights would argue that this the point of the Pro-choice movement. They argue that women must be empowered to control their bodies. Yet there is a another powerless party involved in the discussion, the living being carried by the mother. Who speaks for them? Who empowers the powerless in this case?
Furthermore, barring rape, it can be argued that a pregnant woman has already made the a choice prior to arriving at the question of having an abortion. Specifically, the mother has the choice whether or not engage in sexual activity. It is not like pregnancy is a little known consequence of sexual activity. As such, the choice of controlling one's body ended with the decision to engage in intercourse.
Therefor e, the question of the rights of the woman is a misnomer in this discussion. The mother has the power and right to choose before the act leading to pregnancy. However, once the act is completed and a living being is conceived, the powerless one becomes the living being and not the mother. As previously discussed, rights are brought into play to defend the powerless from the powerful. The mother considering abortion has all of the power while the living being she carries has none. So the question becomes, who is in need of rights, the mother or the life she carries?
Learn more about this author, David Baylor.
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?
- Does the US Patriot Act undermine Americans' freedoms?
- Do mandatory seat belt laws violate individual rights?
- Should the Internet be monitored and taxed by the government?
- Violators of gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of lawful citizens
- Has political correctness undermined free speech in the US?
