2 of 59

Disagree

Write now Article Tools

A woman should always have the right to choose what to do with her own body. To me the entire pro-life or pro-choice is poor wording. Neal Boortz said it correctly when he termed it "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." It's a hard enough decision for a woman to make and process to go through without making matters worse by restricting the already limited availability of abortions.

Think about the woman who is most likely going to choose to have an abortion. She might be very young and too immature or financially unable to have a child. Or perhaps it is a woman who already has several children and cannot afford another. In either of the two situations the fetus is a burden. Well why not just carry the child to term and then let someone adopt it you ask? Well that's all fine and dandy if the mother to be has health insurance to cover all costs of doctors visits, hospital stays and delivery. Also she has to be willing to go through the physical strain of the nine months of pregnancy. Imagine if a child was born to a teen mother who didn't want it, or either a woman who was already on welfare trying to support her family. What kind of life would a child born to either of these two women have?

Most likely the child would have a miserable existence and live in poverty. The child and it's mother would more than likely receive Medicaid making them both a burden on society. Why take away the options of the pregnant woman? I'm not saying abortion should be used as a form of birth control, women should learn how to protect themselves properly from pregnancy. Methods of birth control are more readily available and cheaper than ever so there isn't much excuse to get pregnant unless you're just lazy. However, if pregnancy does occur due to ignorance or whatever and the woman chooses to terminate it, she should feel free to do so.

There is a local man in the town where I live who has made the protestation of abortion his life's mission. He is even nicknamed "pro-life Anderson." He marches up and down sidewalks holding signs with anti-abortion slogans on them. This mans car even has "stop the lie" spray painted on the side. I wanted to stop him and ask how many children he had adopted. The fact is that no one tries to restrict medical decisions this man makes about his own body, so why does he feel he has the right to get on a soapbox and preach to us about what we should do with ours.

I'm not even going to address the issue of rape because that is too obvious. When a woman chooses to get pregnant she has a right to decide for herself who the father will be. Forcing someone to have a child that was a product of rape is beyond ludicrous. Even if the child managed to not inherit any mental problems from it's obviously mentally disturbed father, the mother would most likely harbor resentment for it it's entire life, or not be able to look at it without thinking of the horrible circumstances behind it's conception.

If anything abortions should be made more accessible not restricted further. Many smaller towns do not even have clinics where this procedure is available. And just exactly what do you mean by restrictions on availability? What are you going to base your decision to deny this procedure on? If the mother's life is at stake, offer the option but in any other case force her to carry to term? What if the baby will be afflicted with some horrible incurable illness that will plague it for it's entire life? It seems to vague to just say "there should be restrictions." Where would you draw the line? I can't speak for any other woman but my body is not an incubator for someone else and my choices should always be my own.

Learn more about this author, Julie Bruce.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about There should be restrictions on the availability of abortion, except when the mother's life is at stake?
We want to hear your view. Write now!