Anonymous
It is in my belief that individuals should have access to safe abortions because laws against them are rapidly increasing, religious beliefs should only be for an individual, and abortion is a human rights issue because people don’t have access to safe practices.
Starting with the first claim, religion should not be an excuse to discriminate against anyone, for one’s religious values should only be for themself. On the other hand, the term pro-life means someone who opposes the intentional killing of fetuses in the womb. Nevertheless, the term “pro-life” is inaccurate because pro-lifers don’t actually value human life; they are just interested in discriminating against women. To bring in the Respect for Persons Ethical Argument, if they genuinely appreciated human life, they would be supporting adoption centers, gun control bans, the Black Lives Matter movement, Stop Asian Hate, Stop Line 3, and many others. Instead, they tend to be on the opposite side of the issues discussed above. Isn’t that odd?
To further my point, according to the ACLU, “While religious freedom gives us all the right to our beliefs, it doesn’t give institutions or individuals the right to impose their beliefs on others or to discriminate.” This quote perfectly supports the claim that religious values should only be for an individual. Additionally, during a keynote speech at the Urbana conference in 2016, Michelle Higgins said the phrase “withholding mercy from the living so that we might display a big spectacle of how much we want mercy to be shown to the unborn.” This sentence sums up that “anti-choicers” have astounding priorities, showing how they would let breathing, thinking, living, humans die rather than barely developed zygotes. This goes against the Justice Ethical Argument because pregnant individuals deserve to make their own decisions, not be governed by others. Ultimately, religious beliefs should not be used as fact or reason because someone’s values should only be for themself.
Now, to look at some points from the side against abortion. The Gospel Coalition states, “Pro-life advocates should stop buying the premise that because we oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings, we must take on other tragic societal ills under the banner of being ‘pro-life.’…Is the American Cancer Society neglectful because it fights one type of disease rather than many?” My argument against them is: if an anti-choicer will make a pregnant individual’s bodily autonomy their business, then the anti-choicer needs to make sure the child has a future. One cannot force life and then leave the rest up to the person who didn’t want the child initially. Furthermore, to compare governing someone’s body to a horrible disease is wildly inaccurate and disrespectful to the millions of lives killed by cancer. A “pro-lifer” of all people should know better.
In addition, from The Gospel Coalition, “A well-intentioned pro-life organization insists the pro-life movement must not only save children, but ‘programmatically’ help others’ build strong families, have healthy marriages, be better parents, and have thriving faith lives’—that, and promote responsible fatherhood. How is all that even possible? Pro-lifers just got saddled with a backbreaking job description not even Superman can pull off.” Here, I would respond, if taking care of the aftermath of one’s decisions is hard, then they should have thought about that before involving themselves in someone else’s business. If a person is stepping into someone else’s problem, that person needs to realize they have to shoulder the weight of the aftermath. As a so-called “pro-lifer,” one would need to make sure all life is safe, not just unborn lives. Still, people try to step in and make decisions for others based on faith and spirituality, even though it’s not their place to do so. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Equally important, once again from, “To be ‘pro-life’ means to speak up on behalf of children being led to the slaughter, and to engage in rescue of those children, and their parents, who are often victims of the big abortion lie¨ (Gospel Coalition). Firstly, it is inaccurate to call fetuses children because fetuses are not developed; they do not have the ability to do anything children can do. They are evolving zygotes (eggs). They have barely started the process of becoming humans. Secondly, “children being led to the slaughter” is an inaccurate phrase and is against the BioEthics’ Respect for Persons Ethical Argument because it is disrespecting the actual person carrying the fetus. When someone phrases it as dramatically as this, using the word “slaughter,” it sounds as if they are recounting a school shooting, which is definitely a problem that a pro-lifer should be focusing on.
The idea stated above leads back to the original claim that if someone claims themself as “pro-life,” they must show their intent on protecting all life, not protecting fetuses that can’t even breathe yet. Their efforts would not be wasted if they tried to help, because according to Education Week (https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2021/03), in 2018, there were 24 school shootings; in 2019, there were 25, and in 2020, because school was primarily online, there were 10. However, any number of school shootings is still a severe problem that needs to be solved.
The fight for the right to abortion is a human rights issue, and an ethical issue because it agrees with the Respect for Persons Ethical Argument. Research suggests that making decisions about one’s own reproductive life and deciding whether and when to have children is associated with increased wages, greater career earnings, and more work experience and success for women. To define some main ideas, someone pro-choice believes that individuals have the right to their bodily autonomy, but they cannot control that of other individuals. The concept that pro-choice is pro-abortion is inaccurate; “the purpose of the pro-choice movement is to ensure that all choices remain legal.” The pro-choice movement argues that the government should not be in charge of an individual’s right to terminate a pregnancy before the point of viability, which is when a fetus cannot live outside the womb. This agrees with the Justice Ethical Argument because the pregnant individual should be the sole decision maker about their future child. Equally important, Guttmacher Institute states, “Nearly 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Six out of every ten women who have abortions are already mothers.” Although this is correct, the abortion debate usually overlooks the fact that most women who have abortions don’t choose it as their first option. In their circumstances, abortion is the least harmful option available to both the parent and the child. Options include adoption, neglect, financial instability, abortion, etc. According to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, “73 percent of women who had abortions in the United States in 2004 said they couldn’t afford to have children.” The reason “financially unstable” is included as an option above is that many individuals choose abortions because they cannot provide for a possible child. Forcing someone to have a child if they cannot afford it is even more of an issue and goes against the Justice Ethical Argument. Usually, abortion is the last idea they have if all else fails. The government should not take away their backup option. A developed individual’s life is more important than one that is barely formed, and this fact is the basis for the fight for the right to abortion.
Abortion is a safe and secure procedure, but laws that make it difficult (if not impossible) for someone to get an abortion are rapidly increasing. “Since 2011, states have enacted more restrictions to abortion than they did in the previous ten years combined,” according to the Guttmacher Institute. ¨More than half of the states are hostile to abortion rights; only 13 states are supportive.” For instance, in 2013 and 2014, a range of anti-choice legislation was passed, including but not limited to: requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting access to abortion, regulatory measures attacking abortion providers, bans preventing women from getting abortion health insurance coverage, bans on abortion during later stages of pregnancy, etc. These laws show that, no matter how much “pro-lifers” play the victim, they are the ones creating the rules that control others’ bodies. It is the individual’s body, which means abortion is their decision to make.
Furthermore, advancements in birth control inventions and studies, such as developments to the oral contraceptive, the IUD, and improved techniques for abortion and sterilization may help decrease the risk of unplanned pregnancies; someday, abortions may even become rare in the US! New advancements in studies are the kind of idea pro-lifers should be working towards. However, for abortions to become irregular, all people should have access to affordable and trustworthy forms of contraception. In the late 20th century, the most effective birth control forms were only 90% effective, even if used correctly. That percentage should be much higher. The Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, but the government needs to further expand and continue working towards equity.
Overall, given these points, individuals should have access to safe abortion practices. Still, laws are prohibiting them, people with religious beliefs should not force them on anyone else, and abortion is an issue for everyone to care about because it affects many people. Still, unfortunately, they don’t have access to safe procedures. But with changing times comes changing knowledge, and it is up to the young generations to find solutions.
References
Aderholt, Robert, Rep. “Why I’m Pro-Life.” House GOP, House Republicans, 27 Jan. 2017, www.gop.gov/im-pro-life/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
Head, Tom. “The Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice Debate.” ThoughtCo., edited by Molly Fergus and Olivia Valdes, Dotdash, 16 Nov. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-721108. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
Klusendorf, Scott. “What Does It Mean to Be Pro-Life?” The Gospel Coalition, edited by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra et al., Gospel Coalition, 10 Feb. 2018, www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mean-pro-life/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
“Reproductive Freedom.” American Civil Liberties Union, edited by Deborah Archer, 2021, www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
“Reproductive Rights.” Status of Women, edited by Lee Badgett, Dr et al., Status of Women in the States, 2021, statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/reproductive-rights/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.
“State Bans on Abortion throughout Pregnancy.” Guttmacher Institute, edited by Silvia Henriquez and Heather D. Boonstra, 2021, www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions. Accessed 23 Sept. 2021.