Should Abortion Remain legal?
Name
BCOM/275
July 12, 2013
Instructor

Should Abortion Remain legal?

Abortion is a controversial subject. It is legal in every states because of the Supreme Court’s ruling seven to two on January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade. The abortion is a fundamental right to every woman (procon.org, 2013). According to the U.S. News website “Support for the ruling has grown since polls began tracking public opinion on abortion in 1989, with 70 % of Americans now believing the ruling should stand” (Debate club, 2013 Should Abortion be Legal, para 1). Whether people are for it or against it, there are many reasons and justifications for why it should remain legal as well as many other reasons for why it should not be. For example, in the case of a late term abortion, rape, unfit mother who may be using drugs, or life and death risk of the mother or child. Prochoice groups argue that abortion is a right that should not be control by government or religious authority. Pro-life groups give emphasis to personhood and that it begins at conception. Unborn babies are human beings with the right to live, and it is immoral to kill innocent human being. Through the research and study pros and cons of abortion, the legal ramifications, and the effects it may have on women and the unborn child will be discuss to determine if abortion should it remain legal.
Life Starts at Conception

After the Roe v. Wade case, two main groups emerged, Pro-life to oppose the Court’s decision about abortion and Pro-choice to support the Court’s decision in giving the woman the right to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life supporters believe human life starts at conception. Life “starts in the womb when the sperm meets the ovum” (Aksoy 86). Once the male sperm fertilized a mature woman’s eggs, changes occur in the protein coating around the egg to prevent other sperm from entering and to protect that new life forming. Aksoy claims at fertilization, a new genetic member of the species Homo sapiens come about (87). Reece and other American scientists state that “human life cycle begins when a haploid sperm from the father which is a cell containing one set of chromosomes fuses with a haploid egg from the mother” (251). This union of reproductive cell from each parent is referrers as the process of fertilization. The haploid chromosome from each parent forms a diploid chromosome that contains the cell that stars the process of meiosis or cell sex division that develops into a living organism. At that moment, everything about the unborn child genetics is determined. Eighteen days after formation, the unborn child’s or embryo begins to form a heart. Four days later the heart starts to beat circulating blood throughout the child (Cogan 72). Not only does the physical life of an unborn child start at conception, but also the spiritual life as well. The “thinkers and philosophers of the early ages argued that there is a spiritual side of a human individual, and linked the meeting of spirit and physical entity with bodily formation” (Aksoy 87). Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic Priest, and one of the most important Medieval philosophers and theologians of the thirteenth century, states in his theological doctrine commonly known as delayed animation that the succession of souls in the human embryo is infuse after about 40 days from the moment of fertilization (Benagianoi and Mori 163). Deem states that the Bible, a book often label as scientifically inaccurate was written to explain spiritual principles, the nature of mankind, God, and how people can have a personal relationship with the Creator (1). The Bible, states “the Lord God formed man …and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being” (The Everyday Bible, Genesis 2:7). God first design or formed the first human being, and gave him life by infusing the spirit of life, just like an unborn baby is form in the mother’s womb, and infused the spirit of life like Aquinas mention in his theological doctrine. Despite scientific, philosophical, theological evidence of when human life begins, the Supreme Court decided to deny unborn child protection rights under the U.S. Constitution in the Roe v. Wade case. According to the Court, human being, human person are two different things. The Court defines the word “person” as citizens or person born or naturalized in the United States (Shapiro 38). Consequently, the unborn child is not a citizen and do not deserve protection under the US Constitution. The Court alternatively named the unborn child potential life to define the existence of the prenatal human organism and by assuming that an individual’s life must be meaningful before there is logical justification to protect the unborn child. The Court compromise the interest of the unborn by defining away their rights (Destro1253). By ignoring that human life starts at conception and that unborn human being are persons, the Court gave the right to choose to woman over the right to life of unborn babies. Ironically, in August 5, 2002 George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which seeks protection to a child who survives an abortion.
Humans being are created equal, with unalienable rights
The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Jordan, 617). An unborn child cannot speak out for himself in behalf of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Taking away the unborn rights of life, and the opportunity to develop and grow like any other individual directly contradicts the Founding Fathers intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country.
The 14th Amendment protects “people from discrimination and harm from other people” (Lugosi 119), but the Court interprets this amendment in a way that will benefit itself and not the people of the Unites States of America. The Fourteenth Amendment protects human beings, including born and unborn, but the Court chose to define the unborn as non-person or citizen. The Court made that decision based on the unborn geographical location, the mother’s womb. The XIV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution section one states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Jordan, 513). This means that the court, state, or the mother should not deprive any person from life, including the unborn.
The rights of any human being, including unborn babies needs respect. Those rights should be balanced to do justice to all persons born or unborn. More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that a woman's right to choose abortion is a fundamental right in the Roe v. Wade case. The court did not deny the right to choose an abortion of a non-viable fetus because it would violate a woman’s constitutional rights. It gave a woman the right to choose over her body, but took away the rights of the unborn child. This decision is not well balanced because it implies that one life is more valuable than another when all humans are created equal with unalienable rights.
Nevertheless, the Feminists for Life of America, a group of women who believes women should not sacrifice the lives of their unborn children over their education, career, plans or current family status states they, “believe in a woman's right to control her body and she deserves that right no matter where she lives; even if she is still living in her mother's womb” (Hentoff 2). This confirms not only human born and unborn rights, but also extends to the woman’s rights even if she is in the mother’s womb. Unborn children deserve better, they deserve the right to life.
Conclusion
Abortion is one of those polarizing topics that American’s have argued vigorously over for decades and both sides have legitimate arguments. It only comes down to one question though, when does life really begin? Pro-choice supporters would argue that the unborn child is a fetus not a living baby. Therefore, it is not a living person and the mother has the right to terminate the unborn fetus. A pro-life supporter would argue that it is a living person at the moment of conception and if the mother would choose to end that pregnancy it should be considered murder. Most mothers who went through a pregnancy would agree that life begins at conception. Scientifically, a fetus in the womb fulfills all of the prerequisites for being alive. There are four criteria to be technically alive; metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (Schwarzwalder, 2006). A fetus fulfills all of those criteria, so therefore is technically alive regardless of what the U.S. government says. With the technology available today, a baby can be seeing moving in the womb as soon as 10 weeks after contraception. A survey done by Planned Parenthood in 2003 showed that 51% of women only believe abortion should be legal unless in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother (Schwarzwalder, 2006). Abortion should be illegal because of the facts shown in this research. It is a sad fact, but America has the highest abortion rate in the world and the trend seems to be growing. There is case after case in which some women are using abortion as a form of birth control. Does the wellbeing and quality of life of the mother justify terminating the existence of her baby’s life? Who gets to make that call? These are some of the questions that should be asked when approaching this debate. Abortion should be illegal because taking a baby’s life is never justified.

References

Benagiano, G., & Mori, M. (2007). Evolution of thinking of the Catholic Church on

The beginning of human life. Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited), 14(S1), 162-168.Z http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aa24bd08-8399-48d2-ba2f-2234509df2b6%40sessionmgr4&vid=4&hid=23. Cogan, John F. “Science Sheds Light on Unborn Human Life.” September 9, 2001 http://www.sfuhl.org. http://www.sfuhl.org/k_appendix_2_heart.htm

Debate Club. (2013). Should abortion be illegal .Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-abortion-be-illegal Deem, Rich. “Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?”
Evidence for God. December 18, 2007. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html. Destro, R. A. (1975). Abortion and the Constitution: The Need for a Life-Protective Amendment. California Law Review, 63(5), 1250.

Everyday Life Bible Amplified Version. Ed. Lockman Foundation and
Zondervan Corporation. New York: New York, 2006. Print.

Head, T. (2013). About.com, Civil Liberties, retrieved from www.civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/every_stat.htm Hentoff, N. (1994, October 29). Yes, There Are Pro-Life Feminists . The Washington Post. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_feminist.html. Jordan, T. L. (1998). The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It (7th ed.). Naperville, IL: Oak Hill Publishing Co.

Lugosi, C. (2006). Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Issues In Law & Medicine, 22(2-3), 119-303.

ProCon.org. (2013, June 13). Abortion ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://abortion.procon.org Reece J. B, Urry L. A, Cain M. L, Wasserman S. A. Minorsky P. V,
And Jackson R. B. Campbell Biology 9th edition. San Francisco CA:
Pearson Education, 2011. Print.

Shapiro, I. Abortion The Supreme Court Decisions 1965-2007 3rd Edition. Indianapolis IN; Hackett Publishing, 2007. Print.

Schwarzwalder, R. (2006). Family Research Center.
Retrieved from http://the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular-audiences