Whose Rights?

Who's Rights?

Abortion, in its most common ways of usage, refers to the voluntary termination of pregnancy, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As with all public policy issues there are many points of view on this subject. Abortion is a culture

wars issue, and as such "the fissures that [it]...creates are deeper and more difficult to contain within civil and constrained discourse."(Peters 415) Due to the deep moral arguments attached to the issue of abortion, it is very difficult, if not impossible to detach the issue from personal stories and beliefs. Irrefutably the United States of America is not a theocracy, and the separation of church and state is an important ideological pillar to the American way of life. In cases categorized under the idea of the culture wars however, American citizens' personal beliefs and morals are going to affect policy formation and implication. The arguments presented for pro-life are that every child born should be wanted, and every child conceived should be born the opposing argument is that a woman should have the right to decide whether or not to bear a child.

In 1973, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from trained medical surgeons, which then led to large decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death. Since then the argument between the pro-choice advocates and the pro-life advocates has remained strong and heated. Pro-life activists carry a strong argument, and continue to push their beliefs. They feel so strongly about these beliefs that violence has broken out in some known instances. Currently there is a movement to reverse the decision, as is evident by the February 22, 2006 decision of South Dakota to make it illegal for a physician to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the mother (Nieves). This proposal takes away the rights of American women that are guaranteed by our Constitution. The 1973 decision protects a woman's right to bodily autonomy and privacy. Both of these, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is implied, and adheres to an individualistic nature of American law. By banning abortion and reversing the decision of Roe v Wade, the government would be taking away women's rights, and forcing many desperate women to pursue illegal alternatives that could be potentially harmful.

Under the 14th Amendment's "personal liberty", women are given the right to receive an abortion. The 14th Amendment's concept of "personal liberty" and restrictions on state action, allows a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The right to choose to have an abortion is so personal and essential to women's lives that without this right, women cannot exercise other fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed to them by the Constitution. The state cannot interfere in the private lives of a citizen. Without the right to choose an abortion the 14th Amendment's guarantee of liberty has little meaning for women. With the right to choose an abortion, women are able to enjoy, like men, the rights to fully use the powers of their minds and bodies. Abortions must remain legal, and free of extreme barriers, for the right to privacy to be fully adhered to. The issue of abortion, while irrefutably lined with moral ideals and often religious beliefs, must be approached from a legal perspective. Legally the woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and the choice to use her body, the way she feels appropriate.

The National Abortion Right Act League argues that without legal abortion women would be denied their constitutional right of privacy and liberty. The women's right to her own body subordinates those of the fetus. If abortion was illegal it would force poor women to bear and raise children they can't afford to bring up. There would be a number of unsafe abortions in back allies. It would also force women to give up their dreams and stay home to bring up babies. Worst of all, it would condemn victims of incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their rapist. Abortion is necessary for women to have control over their own bodies and life. One activist said, "If I hadn't had that abortion my life would have been a disaster. I wouldn't have made it to medical school. I was married at that point to a very ill man and it would have been terrible to have to have my baby." People who need abortions are in some kind of turmoil and it's really a life-saving thing.(Planned Parenthood) To ignore the rights of others is selfish and injustice. Women must have the right to control the functions of their own bodies. Reverend George Gardiner pastor of the college Hill United Methodist Church told the council that the ordnance would have done little good. Young women need the freedom to make choices for their reproductive life when their family can't guarantee them parental support. (Gradiner) "Women should not be forced to have babies they don't want. They must be able to decide what happens to them and have a safe plus legal way of doing so." Women are in control of their own bodies and lives. Legislators have no right to interfere. The practical assertion that since pregnancy involves a women's body, the choice of continuing that pregnancy must be hers alone. This was the first given baneful theoretical articulation and defense by Judith Thomson.

Many pro-life advocates state that the issue is not the rights of the mother, but the rights of the unborn fetus. They feel that fetal rights, is nothing more than an extension of the principle of equality to the youngest members of the human family. Unfortunately however, making abortions illegal on this criteria, would be giving more rights to the unborn than to the born. No human being has the right to the use of another person's body, even in matters of life and death. Each individual has the right to advocate for how their body is to be used. This child will essentially be a parasite on the unwanting mother's body.

Another argument, commonly used by pro-life advocates is that development is a continuous cycle, therefore, there can be no line drawn between the point where a fetus is not a human and where it is not. This choice is clearly an arbitrary one, and the argument is then