For many years, whether or not women should have the right to have an abortion has been a highly debated issue in the United States. This debate was intensified after the passing of Roe v Wade in 1973, which made it legal for women to get an abortion if they so choose. In the end I personally believe, along with the majority of Americans, that women should retain that right. For a myriad of moral, political, and scientific reasons, women should be able to have an abortion. The main moral argument for abortion is that it is not right for anyone to be able to tell another person what to do with their own body, as long as it is not detrimental to their own health. Safety is not an issue, because medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. Men, who are more commonly against abortion, do not have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, due to the fact that they just dont understand what a woman is going through when they make the decision to do so or not. Many times women who have abortions would be unable or unwilling to provide for the baby had it been born, and nobody should force another person to have an unwanted baby. The political argument for abortion is also a strong one, and not all that different from the moral one. Put simply, our government does not have the legal right to control what women do with their own bodies. Also, due to the previously mentioned Roe v Wade passing, there is already a legal precedent for abortion, and all politicians should respect a previously passed law. Regardless of personal belief, a Senator from Texas should never be able to tell a woman from Baltimore what she can and cannot do with herself. Abortion has been a practice that has been around for over 100 years. Whether or not abortion is legal or not, it will continue to occur throughout the country. Legalizing abortion will lower the amount of deaths that unsafe and illegal abortions will produce. It would also lower the crime rates from unwanted and neglected children. Studies have shown that states with high abortion rates experienced greater crime reduction. Legalized abortion accounts for as much as 50% of the recent drop crime. In conclusion, there is quite simply not a valid moral, political, or scientific argument against abortion. Although many people may personally be against it, and would never get one themselves, that does not mean that they get to instill their beliefs upon others. There is no real justification to do so, especially since we have a separation of church and state in our country. We are now 43 years past the original passing of the legalization of abortion, and it is time to put this debate to rest.
Good post.....I agree with everything but would just tweak the fact that abortion has been around a lot longer than 100 years...but that's a minor point, I like your post. The Polls do show that no matter how Americans feel personally about abortion most do think it should be legal.
Slavery existed for 245 years. Child abuse and homicides are two other things that continue to occur throughout the country as well.
Slavery, child abuse, and homicides disrupt society, cause chaos and have victims, (that's why they're illegal)..... Abortion doesn't.
That's a laugh, you seem to have defeated your own argument right there. Abortion is detrimental to somebody's health... in fact it's pretty much fatal. You seem to find it acceptable to restrict an activity if it is harmful to someone's own healthy. Why then would you not find it acceptable to restrict them from doing something that could be harmful to someone else's health?
I agree, and that's why this important moral issue should be left to the States. A woman who tries to flee to another State to get an abortion could still be prosecuted, however. She would have to be live in a State for at least 9 months before she could be considered a resident for the purposes of obtaining an abortion. The fetus would still be under the jurisdiction of the State in which it was conceived. There is a legal argument here: The Fourteenth Ammendment
Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. Yup, that's a reason abortion is legal....
Maybe I'm missing something but nowhere does it say persons have to be born to be entitled to equal protection under the law.
You're missing something....the meaning of the first and second sentences....and yes, I know there's only two sentences.
Residency requirements for a fetus??? Woe to the fetus whose mother was traveling on the day of its conception, perhaps passing any number of state lines.
""""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. """" Follow the blue highlights. The statement is not going to repeat """All persons born"".."are citizens" every time it says "person" or "citizen".
There are several reasons the "pro-lifers" have FAILED for 43 years. 1. (As Fox noted) Polls show that while a slim majority say they are personally "pro-life"....a larger majority say that Roe v. Wade was decided rightly and don't want it overturned. 2. The inherent dishonesty of the "pro-lifers" who contradict their own rhetoric. As conservatives they contradict the claim they "want Government out of your lives and off your backs". Even as "pro-lifers" they contradit themselves when they say "Abortion is murder"....yet they admit (most of them) that they wouldn't want it punished as "murder" if it were illegal." 3. Basically the fact that it would be nearly impossible to enforce a ban on abortion nationally....even more so if it was "state-by-state"....a woman in "pro-life" Kentucky could travel to pro-choice Illinois in a half a day. Which is why only the misogynistic fascists support the idea of a "Womb Gestapo". The rest of the country sees that reality though...and thus despite all the political TALK over the past 40 years, naturally from the Republican Party making false promises.... abortion will remain legal in the United States.
Neither Republican politicians or Democrats want the abortion issue settled. It is the dog-whistle that brings out voters. Every dime spent on trying to make abortion illegal is a dime that could have been spent on free condoms, day-after-pills, and healthy mother programs -things that actually work to reduce abortions.
You can make that case. I think most Republicans KNOW that they won't or can't ban abortion...despite the phony promises they make to the gullible "pro-lifers" ever election. And it's probably true Democrats know it too.
Except that the 14th amendment destroys all pro-life arguments, especially the equal protection clause.
You are so right. Also, every day spent protesting abortion, every day spent lobbying legislators, every day spent meeting with pro-life groups, are days and days that could have been spent helping young families in distress, in need in one way or another. Volunteers are always needed at mothers-day-out programs, head start programs, etc.
That is a very interesting thought. I suppose the State seeking jurisdictional claim pertaining to the fetus's life would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus was "naturalized" within that State. Of course, if they could narrow down the woman's whereabouts at the time to between two States and both those States had the same fetal protection laws, then it would be a moot point. What if the woman temporarily went to another State got pregnant there, then went back to her home state for just 2 weeks while the fetus was still in the early stages of development, then moved yet again to another State that had liberal pro-choice laws? Does the fact that the fetus spent 2 weeks of its development in the woman's official State of residence give the State territorial jurisdiction? This may sound rather silly on the surface, but historically it actually was an unresolved legal issue during the era of Slavery, since the child of a slave born in a free State was automatically free. Oftentimes there were all sorts of questions about where the child was born, and heavily pregnant slave women trying to temporarily escape across the border to give birth there so the child would be free. The question, at least the way I see it, is can a State exercise its sovereignty over one of its citizens when the act in question happened outside the State's jurisdiction? What exactly is it that gives a State jurisdiction? If a fetus spends 8 weeks during the middle of its development within the territory of a particular State, is that enough to give that State extraterritorial jurisdiction over that fetus when the woman moves? What about grown children? If a baby spends 5 months of its early life growing up in one State, then the woman moves and the original State believes the baby is being mistreated and wants to revoke custody from the woman, but the State the woman is now in does not want to revoke custody from her. You can see how this could be an issue, not just in the case of abortion.
Yes, you can surely see the complications of claiming jurisdiction over a fetus and quibbling over its "residence." You must remember that a citizen is "born."
We could make this very simple and establish a rule that if the fetus spends more than x amount of time developing in a certain state, and the woman is considered a resident of that state (lived there within the last 9 months for more than x amount of time), then the fetus falls under the jurisdiction of that state. This would have to be established as a federal rule concerning extradition... or the state in question could just nab her if they ever catch her in the territory...
We could make this very simple and just establish that a fetus is under the jurisdiction of the woman in whom it resides. The woman IS its residence. Then the states can use their resources to catch criminals, you know, those who violate laws and create chaos in the community. Or are you just having fun here and seeing how far you can push us in the ridiculous?
just saying that if the abortion issue gets returned to the states, that doesn't necessarily mean women will be able to cross borders to get one.
Why? Would you want a law passed restricting Americans movements (freedom, liberty) in America? But then it's all and only about controlling women......isn't it?
Freedom of movement, not the right to kill your child. It's perfectly reasonable to tell a 6-month pregnant woman that she's not allowed to abort just because she drives down to New Mexico.
Most abortions are done long before 6 months. You said, """just saying that if the abortion issue gets returned to the states, that doesn't necessarily mean women will be able to cross borders to get one."" HOW would you stop women from crossing state borders without taking away their rights??
