This a paper I wrote my senior year of high school. Yes, it is long (10 pages double spaced), but worth the read. I've included my sources at the bottom. This paper is strictly educational, as it doesn't precisely take one side or the other. My personal position, however, is pro-life.
The year is 1965. Norma McCorvey –
a divorced, poor, and single parent from Texas
– struggles to support herself and her daughter with her job as a waitress. Ms.
McCorvey is pregnant but feels that she cannot support another child. She wants
to have an abortion but her doctor informs her that a woman can have an
abortion in Texas
only if her life is in danger, and her life is not. Ms. McCorvey is unable to
have a legal abortion performed in Texas,
cannot afford to go to California
where abortions are legal, and does not have the money to pay for an illegal
abortion anywhere. Trying to somehow overcome the state law, Ms. McCorvey,
bitter and depressed, decides to lie about her situation. She makes up a story
about being raped by four people, but finds that she cannot evade the law.
Although she has the option of keeping her baby, she decides in the best
interest of herself, her daughter, and the future baby, to place the baby for adoption.
Her lawyer persuades her to take her case to court to challenge the Texas statute that
denied her the right to have a legal abortion. The case, Roe v. Wade,
eventually reaches the Supreme Court and, along with another case, Doe v.
Bolton, ultimately leads to the
landmark decision to nationally legalize abortion (Terkel 13-16). Since the
legalization of abortion in 1973, its legality has become one of the most
controversial issues in the United
States. The opponents of abortion argue in
the interest of the fetus, while the other side, supporters of abortion rights,
fights in the interest of the woman (Toner 1). An all-out concession by either
side of the debate seems unlikely, so the only probable solution to the
abortion issue would be a compromise involving limits to abortion, better
distribution of information, and more alternatives available to women.
The
issue of abortion dates back to the fourth century B.C., when Aristotle advised
“abortion for parents with too many children” (Day 15). Some of the earliest medical texts include
references to abortion. Hippocrates (c. 460-c.377 B.C.), a Greek physician
often called the father of medicine, shared his recipes for abortifacients
(agents for causing abortion) in his book, Diseases
of Women (Day 15). Galen (c.130-c.200 A.D.), a physician who wrote many
medical texts, described a number of abortifacients in his manuscripts. Even entire civilizations had their own
‘recipes.’ Ancient Egyptians made their abortifacients from dung, resin,
juniper, leeks, Egyptian salts, and celery seed (Day 16).
Although
abortion had existed for many centuries before hand, opposition was never
documented until the advent of Christianity. During the thirteenth century
A.D., the philosopher and Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that life
begins when the soul enters the body (Day 16). Aquinas felt that it was not a
mortal sin to abort the fetus before its soul had entered the body because life
did not begin until one had a soul (Day 17). He defined that occurrence as
forty days after conception for male fetuses, and eighty days after for females
(Day 16). Aquinas’ standards were adopted by the Catholic Church, and remained
in use for centuries. In later years, quickening – when the mother first feels
the baby move – became the definition for the time when the soul entered the
body (Day 17).
During
the early colony days of the United
States, abortion laws followed the English
Common Law. Under the English Common Law, abortion was forbidden. An abortion
performed prior to quickening was a misdemeanor, while one performed after that
event qualified as a felony. In the early 1800s, the definition for when life
began changed when it was discovered that life began at fertilization, not when
she “felt life.” Throughout the mid-nineteenth century, each present-day state
passed their individual laws concerning abortion. By 1860, eighty-five percent
of the population lived in a state that had passed new laws prohibiting
abortion (Willke 1). The effects of abortion could be seen in the number of
children a woman had. In the 1800s, the average American woman had given birth
to seven children, but by 1900 that number had dropped to three and a half.
Some people estimated the abortion rate had been between one fifth and one
third of all pregnancies (Day 18).
As the years
progressed, the reasons women wanted an abortion changed. During the mid 1800s,
motives for having an abortion included health concerns, financial pressures,
and covering up the scandal having had sex outside of marriage. Medical doctors
and unlicensed abortionists with varying skills used the same methods: poisons
or inserting sharp objects into the uterus (Day 17).In the 1930s, poverty was
an accepted reason, and by the 1940s and 1950s, some doctors even accepted psychiatric
reasons (Day 21). The “acceptable” reasons for having an abortion continued to
expand, including mother’s health, fetal abnormalities, and rape and incest, in
addition to the list of preexisting motivations (Day 34-37).
Even though
abortion had existed for centuries beforehand, public objection did not come
into play until the mid 1800s. In 1838,
Charles and Anna Lohman, assuming the names Dr. Mauriceau and Madame Restell,
advertised their abortion services in the New York Herald. Their efforts
were successful, and they opened branch offices in other cities. Other people
followed their example, and the performing of abortions became a business (Day
18). In the following decades up to the mid 1900s, concerns over the risks of
abortions performed by unlicensed practitioners led to the passing of United States
laws to regulate abortion. The American Medical Association (AMA) was able to
get restrictions placed on abortion by the mid 1900s (Day 18). In the second
half of the twentieth century, the AMA joined forces with the Church in a
campaign against abortion (Day 19). Other organizations emerged on the scene,
taking either one side as abortion supporters, or the other side as
anti-abortion advocates. In 1921 Margaret Sanger, a nurse in the New York ghetto,
founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, pushed for giving a woman her rights (Day
21). The American Law Institute (ALI) suggested a standard abortion code in
1959. Those guidelines allowed abortion when a pregnancy “would gravely impair
the physical or mental health of the mother,” when the child was likely to be
born with “grave physical and mental defects,” and when rape or incest was
involved. The abortion would also have to be approved by two doctors (Day 23).
The National Organization for Women (NOW) included the right to control their
reproductive lives, and gained support from many Protestant Churches (Day 23).
In 1973, a
national ruling was made by the Supreme Court. In Roe V. Wade, the
Supreme Court ruled that states could not interfere with the physician-patient
decision during the first trimester. Intervention was allowed during the second
trimester only to ensure safe medical practices that were related to the
mother’s health. During the third trimester, however, states could regulate or
prohibit abortion unless the procedure was necessary to protect the life or
health of the woman (Day 24).
Two decidedly
different sides to the abortion issue have emerged over the past few centuries.
Individuals and groups usually take one side or another; they either support
abortion, or they oppose abortion. Those who believe that abortion should stay
legal are often categorized under the caption pro-choice. Those who classify
themselves as against abortion generally put themselves under the caption
pro-life. The varying issues that these two groups are at odds about include
the morality of abortion, the restriction of abortion rights, as well as other
diverse topics.
Those people who
can be described as pro-choice believe that abortion should stay as an
available choice for women who want one performed. Many people who group
themselves on this side of the issue believe that abortion is not immoral. At
the moment of conception, a sperm and ovum join to create one cell. To say that
one cell is already a full human being, they say, is illogical. Whether the
result of procreation is labeled a zygote, blastocyte, embryo, or fetus,
because it does not have all the attributes of a human being, it cannot be
considered one (Morgentaler 1). Since the object of discussion is not a human
being, it cannot be considered murder when an abortion takes place.
A main issue among
the pro-choice community pertains to the woman’s choice and right to have an
abortion. They debate and argue that no one can tell a woman what to do or not
do with their bodies. A pregnancy involves many responsibilities,
inconveniences, limitations, and even dangers. Women who eagerly await the
birth of that wanted child see that as a small price to pay; however, for those
women who have no dependable partner, are too poor, are too young for the
responsibility of caring for a child, or emotionally and physically unprepared
to become mothers, being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy can be
devastating (Day 92-93). Other people say that if the mother’s life is
threatened, she was the victim of rape or incest, or the fetus is grossly
deformed, then that woman should be able to have an abortion if she wishes. Stephanie
Foster, vice president of government affairs for Planned Parenthood, stated,
“We want to support people in all types of decisions they make (Osborne 1-2).”
Many pro-choice proponents have voiced their opinion that an unwanted child
should not be brought into the world (Day 81).
The pro-choice
community upholds their outlook on abortion that keeping abortion legal and
available to women is in the best interest of the United States community as a whole.
The pro-choice philosophy maintains that:
…the availability
of good medical abortions protects the health and fertility of women and allows
children to be born into homes where they can receive love, care, affection,
and respect for their unique individuality, so that these children will grow up
to be joyful, loving, caring, responsible members of the community, able to
enter into meaningful relationships.
Thus, reproductive
freedom – access to legal abortions, to contraception, and, by extension, to
sexual education – protects women and couples and is probably the most important
aspect of preventive medicine and psychiatry, as well as the most promising
preventative of crime and mental illness in our society (Morgentaler 3).
This philosophy is supported by a
number of different statistics. Wherever the legislation of abortion has been
liberalized, the effects on public health have been positive. A steady decline
in complications and mortality associated with medical abortions, a decline in
mortality due to childbirth, a drop in newborn and infant mortality, an overall
decline in premature births, and a drop in the number of births of unwanted
children are all evidence of the effectiveness in the following of the
philosophy (Morgentaler 3).
On the opposite
side of the spectrum regarding the abortion topic, many people and groups see
abortion as an unnecessary evil that needs to be done away with. Many issues
brought up by pro-choice icons have counters brought forward from people who
feel strongly for the pro-life side of the issue. The main idea they accept and
fight for shows abortion as the murder of a human being. Those people who fight
to make abortion illegal feel the issue is a matter of life and death for
millions of innocent children (Day 77). John Jansen, co-director of Generations
for Life, said, “Just as I believe no one has the right to kill an innocent
human being who is already born, I also believe no one has the right to kill an
innocent human being who is not yet born (Jansen).” Pro-lifers argue that it is
not a choice, but a child. By speaking
of the fetus as a “choice,” the pro-choice activists are dehumanizing and
depersonalizing unborn children (Day 80). Sidney Callahan, a pro-life feminist,
says that “the fetus is an immature dependent form of human life which only
needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not
crimes (Day 81).” While pro-choice supporters feel that abortion should be a
choice made available to women, one decidedly pro-choice website demonstrates
an entirely different opinion. An article on abort73.com states, “Abortion
isn’t about choice, it’s
about the systematic slaughter of innocent human beings (Photographic 1).”
One very controversial issue involves
the definition of when human life begins. Pro-lifers contend that life begins
at conception, and surprising as it may appear to many people, the medical
community agrees with that contention. Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at University of Descartes,
voiced his opinion based on medical testimony, "After fertilization has
taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter
of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a
very neat beginning, at conception (Medical 1)." Various other reputable
persons also lent their voices in conveying the medical truth. Dr. Alfred M.
Bongioanni, Professor
of Pediatrics and Obstetrics at University
of Pennsylvania, said,” I have learned from
my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception
(Medical 1)." In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary
subcommittee received those two testimonies, among with many others from a
variety of medical experts. The official Senate report came to the following
conclusion:
Physicians, biologists, and other
scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human
being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is
overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and
scientific writings (Medical 1).
In addition to the argument over
the personhood of the unborn, abortion also violates the fetus’s interests
(Kaplan 27). Just because the unborn child does not have the same human
capabilities as a newborn does not mean that it does not have interests. If the
criteria for personhood lied in the ability to exercise abilities, then someone
in a reversible coma would not have any interest (Kaplan 29). While the person
in a coma cannot exercise his or her abilities at that present moment, that
person still has interest because of the potentiality to use them. The fetus
also has a potential to use human capabilities (Kaplan 29). Morton Kaplan wrote
in one of his articles, “Like the fetus …the individual in a reversible
coma…clearly has interests (Kaplan 29).”
Abortion
has been legal in the United
States ever since that fateful day in 1973.
Every year in the United
States, roughly 1.3 million abortions are
performed. That burns down to more than 3,500 abortions being performed every
single day and approximately one abortion every twenty seconds (Voice 1).
Approximately forty-six million abortions are performed each year worldwide,
which accounts for about 126,000 abortions daily. About twenty thousand of
those annual abortions are obtained in countries where either abortion is
restricted or prohibited (Abortion 1). In one clinic in Dallas/Ft.
Worth, Texas
during the late 1970s, it was $185 to $1,250 for a second or third trimester
abortion.
“Twelve weeks and under was $185 and 13 to 14 weeks was $250, and 14 to
15 weeks was $375. The $1,250 was the top of the line - general anesthesia,
second or third trimester abortion. Abortions can be performed with oral
medication or, if you have the money, with general anesthesia (Everett 1).”
With
so many abortions being performed every day, and the price tag attached to an
abortion, the people who truly profit are those who run the abortion clinics.
Carol Everett of Greater Dallas Right to Life and former worker for an abortion
clinic, said, “I watched my employer's income go from $25,000 to $125,000 a
year in two clinics… Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so
profitable. Where else can someone like me make $150,000, much less a quarter
of a million a year (Everett
1)?” Deception in that Dallas clinic can quite
easily be seen in what Everett
says:
In the clinics I
was involved with, we didn't do any real counseling. We answered only the
questions the woman asked …We did not discuss any alternatives to abortion
unless the woman forced us to…The counselor does try to determine the reason
this woman wants the abortion. Not so much to help as to use fear to reinforce
the abortion decision… We told them it [follow-up
counseling] would be available, however, we used some techniques in the
recovery room to discourage further contact except for future abortions…a
13-year-old girl came in for a two-week check-up. The check-up is not as much
to check them, as it is to be sure you didn't miss a pregnancy. She didn't come
out of the room for a long period of time. She was slitting her wrists (Everett 1).
With the number of abortion clinics
in the world, let alone in the United
States, it is not hard for one to imagine
that this type of thing might occur on a daily basis, nationwide, and
worldwide.
Abortion
could be completely banned and outlawed in the United States. This would of course
make many pro-lifers happy; however, there would be bad side affects as well. If
this were to happen, there would of course be the people who would seek to have
abortions illegally. The mortality rate from these procedures could increase
because of the unavailability of safe and sterile environments in which the
abortions could take place. Uproars from pro-choice groups would surge because
of the new law repealing Roe v. Wade. An increase in live births
could mean more children growing up in bad homes and higher crime levels. It
could also mean more babies available to people wishing to adopt. With abortion
banned, people could see a reason to be more careful and use protection with
their easy escape not as readily available.
With all the uproar
over abortion, it is sometimes hard to see any type of resolution to the
conflict. Hillary Clinton, a faithful supporter of abortion rights, previously
spoke about working with the pro-life movement to realize a mutual goal of fewer
abortions (Gragnani 2).With little else foreseeable, the only likely solution
to the myriad of combat over abortion would be a compromise somewhere in the
middle ground between the two sides of the issue. Susan E. Wills, Secretariat
for Pro-Life Activities, says:
Solutions to the
abortion issue were being worked out at the state level -- political
compromises that would allow for abortions in some circumstances which the
great majority of citizens in each state would agree to -- for example,
abortions when the life of the mother was at risk or in cases of rape and
incest. That whole democratic process of compromise came to a screeching halt
when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe, effectively taking the issue
out of the hands of citizens through their elected representatives and usurping
that power for themselves (Wills).
With abortion becoming a sizable
issue in politics, much debate has occurred concerning the topic. Francis Pauc
of St. Stephen’s Parish says, “…the Green Party wants to provide enough
alternatives to women so that abortion no longer becomes an attractive option
for women – safe, legal, and rare, with an emphasis on rare (Gragnani 2).” Bill
Clinton, while running for his first term as president, said he wanted to make
abortions “safe, legal, and rare (Gragnani 2).” Compromise would keep both
sides relatively happy.
The abortion
debate in America
can be seen as a rising storm. A solution to the dispute will eventually have
to be reached. Even though either side may seem more agreeable to any individual
person, neither side would be willing to just give up on their cause, leading
back to the only plausible solution of a compromise somewhere between the
pro-choice and pro-life principles.
Works Cited
“Abortion Facts.”
7 Nov. 2007. www.abortionno.org/resources/fastfacts.html.
“A Voice for the
Unborn.” 7 Nov. 2007. http://www.voiceforunborn.com/.
Day, Nancy. Abortion:
Debating the Issue. USA:
Enslow Publishers, Inc. 1995.
Everett, Carol. “What
I Saw in the Abortion Industry.” 7 Nov. 2007.
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/stuart/whatisaw.htm.
Gragnani,
Vincent. “A little less confrontational, a little more action: after more than
30 years of stalemate, some on both sides of the abortion debate are ready to
put down their signs and start trying to work together.” U.S.
Catholic. Sep. 2006: 12(6). Infotrac. Herscher
High School Library, Herscher, IL
6 Nov. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.
Jansen, John.
Co-director, Generations for Life. Email Address john@prolifeaction.org. Email
Interview. 12 Oct. 2007.
Kaplan, Morton A.
“Abortion Violates the Fetus’s Interests.” The Abortion Controversy. Ed.
Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1995. 27-32.
“Medical
Testimony.” 5 Nov. 2007. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html.
Morgentaler,
Henry. “Abortion is a Moral Choice.” At Issue: The Ethics of Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press. 2001. Infotrac. Herscher High School Library, Herscher, IL
22 Oct. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.
Osborne, Eric.
“Life Support. (ABORTION POLITICS).” The Christian Century. 26 June
2007: 8(3). Infotrac. Herscher High School Library, Herscher, IL
6 Nov. 2007. http://infotrac/galegroup/com.itweb.herscherhs.
“Photographic
Evidence.” 5 Nov. 2007. http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-warning.html.
Terkel, Susan Neilburg. Abortion: Facing the Issues. USA: Moffa
Press, INC. 1988.
Toner, Robin.
“Abortion Foes See Validation for New Tactic.” New York Times. 22 May 2007. 26
Sep. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22abortion.html.
Wills, Susan E.,
Esq. Associate Director for Education, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops. Email Address swills@usccb.org. Email Interview. 20 Oct.
2007.
Willke, Dr. and
Mrs. J. C. Why Can’t We Love Them Both. 7 Nov. 2007.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp.
