Roe V. Wade's Argument Against Abortion
Abortion has many different meanings to various people. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before a fetus is formed. Abortions are most likely to occur before the third trimester. Roe v. Wade was a lawsuit that established the unconstitutionality of forbidding abortion from women. The Supreme Court stated that the decision of abortion should be left up to the doctor and the patient. The Due Process Clause protects people with the right to privacy and therefore, this should include a women’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Most liberals and democrats agree that women should be able to have the right to do what they want with their bodies, no matter how cruel one might think it is. Conservative republicans on the other hand consider the possible child a human and are fighting for the rights of the non-existent child. Both sides are heavily opinionated which
…show more content…
makes this topic controversial. People who support pro-life have arguments that are more on an emotional level that technical. They believe that abortion is just as severe as murder. They rationalize by questioning why a woman could not just simply put the child in adoption than terminate its life. There are 1.5 million Americans that want to adopt. Abortions also threaten women with health risks such as, miscarriages and pelvic inflammatory disease. When it comes to rape pro-life supporter believe that it is unjust for a mother to abort a child who has done no wrong. Pro-choice supporter on the other hand argue that a child is not a child if an abortion takes place in the first trimester. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion because the mother still has to decide if she wants to keep or give up her child. 88% of abortion procedures that are done in the first trimester are successful. Medical abortions have at least .5% risk of a serious health risk. Forcing a woman to have a child in whom she did not intend to have is cruel, especially if she was raped. Overall, pro-choice supporters believe that women should have the right to control their own bodies.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would vote abortion to be legal in all 50 states.
Why should the government or the law determine whether a woman can and cannot have a baby? I believe that having a woman who was raped keep her baby is cruel, especially if she does not want a terrible event in her life to not only follow her around for the rest of her life, but the fact that she will never forget that terrifying event. It does not make sense for pro-life supporters to state that the soon-to-be fetus is a viable being. The soon-to-be-born child is not a child during the first trimester meaning; it is not a human when it has to depend on the mother to be alive. It is more likely for a woman to be healthy after her abortion than it is when she develops health risks. Also, how is adoption any different from abortion? The end result is the same; the mother still gives up having a child. The most important thing to state here is that everyone has certain rights, so why shouldn’t a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body if it is not harming anybody and if the “baby” has not even formed
yet?
makes this topic controversial. People who support pro-life have arguments that are more on an emotional level that technical. They believe that abortion is just as severe as murder. They rationalize by questioning why a woman could not just simply put the child in adoption than terminate its life. There are 1.5 million Americans that want to adopt. Abortions also threaten women with health risks such as, miscarriages and pelvic inflammatory disease. When it comes to rape pro-life supporter believe that it is unjust for a mother to abort a child who has done no wrong. Pro-choice supporter on the other hand argue that a child is not a child if an abortion takes place in the first trimester. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion because the mother still has to decide if she wants to keep or give up her child. 88% of abortion procedures that are done in the first trimester are successful. Medical abortions have at least .5% risk of a serious health risk. Forcing a woman to have a child in whom she did not intend to have is cruel, especially if she was raped. Overall, pro-choice supporters believe that women should have the right to control their own bodies.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would vote abortion to be legal in all 50 states.
Why should the government or the law determine whether a woman can and cannot have a baby? I believe that having a woman who was raped keep her baby is cruel, especially if she does not want a terrible event in her life to not only follow her around for the rest of her life, but the fact that she will never forget that terrifying event. It does not make sense for pro-life supporters to state that the soon-to-be fetus is a viable being. The soon-to-be-born child is not a child during the first trimester meaning; it is not a human when it has to depend on the mother to be alive. It is more likely for a woman to be healthy after her abortion than it is when she develops health risks. Also, how is adoption any different from abortion? The end result is the same; the mother still gives up having a child. The most important thing to state here is that everyone has certain rights, so why shouldn’t a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body if it is not harming anybody and if the “baby” has not even formed
yet?