On Abortion

My term paper from English was on Abortion, transcript below. Sources avialable on request.

Pro-life. Pro-choice. Perhaps the most fought over words in the English language. The debate stemming from the issue of legalized abortion is one of the most vicious in modern history. The fact that this is an issue, let alone a hard fought debate, is indicative of the trend of modern society into selfishness and decay. The fact that one has to argue over the supposed right of a woman to terminate the life created within is a disturbing face to modern American society. We, as a society, have devolved to the state of the supposedly barbaric and backwards early history, where rather than keep their children, they sacrificed them to some made up deity. Rather than wait for the birth to destroy, we simply cut off the life at its source in these modern times, since it is apparently a woman’s right.

Hypocrisy

Even as the U.S. Government is supporting the right to terminate a pregnancy, it is condemning the killing of a human fetus. The so called “Laci and Conner’s Act”, named after the grisly murder of Laci and Conner Peterson. (Arkes 2009) This law states that it is a double murder if one murders a pregnant woman. (Arkes 2009) The fact that there is a law against the killing of an unborn baby (albeit, one that the mother apparently has approved for life), and at the same time, it is legal for a woman to terminate her own fetus’s life, is a huge showing of hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. Government. The side of pro choice noted this fact, and as such, did not support this bill, and as Representative Zoe Lofgren, from California, stated, “This affords even an embryo legal rights equal to and separate from those the woman.” (Arkes 2009) If there is recognition of rights on the side of a human fetus, there must be justification, other than mere will, for the termination of the fetus. If a fetus does indeed have these rights, then whether or not it may be wanted by the carrier will not have an effect on the status of these rights. These rights would be inherent, rather than given, and as such, the fetus would have a right to live. The “right” to abortion is based in hypocrisy.

The Basis of this “Right”

Since the right of abortion, to those who support it, is just as clear as the right to free speech and freedom of religion, one would assume that this right is clearly backed and based in history and in the earliest writings of America. This is not the case. This right has been forced on the American people from the heavy handed Supreme Court. There was no vote on abortion in the states; Roe v. Wade was simply a judgment. (Hair 2009) As Justice William Rehnquist stated after the ruling,

“To reach its result [in Roe v. Wade], the court necessarily had to find within scope of the 14^th Amendment, a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment.” (Hair 2009)

The fact is, this right was simply created by supporters of abortion on the Supreme Court. All other rights in the U.S. Constitution have been created and passed through a majority in Congress, not one panel of biased judges. The role of the judicial branch of government is to enforce the law and preserve liberties, not to create new rights and laws. To add to the Constitution, a majority vote of the states is required. In the case of the right to abort, however, it is simply the will of judges.

Even though this right was established, the states have used various methods to limit abortions, such as forcing minors to inform their parents of the fact they are getting an abortion. (Hair 2009) The current President of the United States is trying to push a bill through, called the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all such restrictions on abortion. (Hair 2009) This right is being forced down the American people’s throats, whether they support federally funded abortions or not.

Women’s Rights and Sexual Freedom

The right to abort was heralded as giving women a freedom of sexuality over the archaic principle of having and raising children. This has back-fired. The option of ending a pregnancy between conception and birth has in fact given control of sexuality over the man. (Stith 2009) Rates of unprotected sex have risen dramatically since abortion was made legal, and since this time many men have felt empowered to push what they want in the bedroom, since the woman can simply terminate the pregnancy. (Stith 2009) At any given time in America, 42 out of 1000 teenage girls are pregnant, which is the worst in the developed world. (Melby 2009) Having the option to end a pregnancy, then actually having the child, could cause the man to feel trapped, and he may reject his fatherly responsibility. In the words of Richard Stith,

“…the father and the doctor and the health-insurance actuary can point a finger at her [the pregnant woman] as the person who allowed an inconvenient human being to come into the world.” (2009)

Furthermore, a woman who has become pregnant is often pressured into aborting the baby. In 64% of abortion cases, the woman has been pressured from outside sources- the father, family, or her friends. (Stith 2009) This is not empowering women to live free, independent lives. They are being forced to comply with men’s sexual desires, and when the pregnancy does occur, they are being pushed into having an abortion.

The Value of A Fetus

To those on the pro-choice side, merely being the beginnings of a human being is not enough to be given rights. Assume for a minute, that a fetus has no rights. The mere fact that a fetus can (and will, given the chance), gives the fetus some form of value. It is wrong to terminate something with inherent value, or, in this case, some form of potential existence value. (Williams 2008) In turn, something with value requires proper justification before it can be destroyed. (Pollok 2007) The mere fact that proper justification would be required to destroy a fetus would eliminate many of the over 800,000 abortions that take place every year in the U.S. (Number 2008) What sort of justifications are put forward? Job opportunities, avoiding parental wrath, avoiding morning sickness, and the like are just some basic examples of why abortions are carried out in the United States. (Astbury-Ward 2009)

It is not a illogical jump to say that something that has value, something that requires justification to be destroyed, in fact, has an inherent right to exist. This runs counter to the argument that there are no inherent rights, and as such, there is not a problem with destroying unwanted fetuses. However, since a fetus does have a right to life, then the society has a duty to protect the fetus, rather than allow its destruction. (Jones 2007)

Pre-Birth Screening

A popular argument for abortion is to abort babies who have disabilities or handicaps. The rate for abortions for babies with just Down’s syndrome is noted as likely around 90%. (Lindeman 2008) This argument assumes that people with Down’s syndrome are, somehow, less human than other people, simply because they are different. This dehumanization is pushed by the doctors who administer this, and they feed the fear of the unknown. It has been shown in other countries, namely, the Netherlands, which have instituted programs which educate parents on the facts about Down’s, and other similar disabilities in children, rather than push fearful ignorance.(Lindeman 2008) Under these new policies, 50% of women have rejected all pre-birth screening, and as such, the abortion rate for these pregnancies has dropped dramatically. (Lindeman 2008)

Interestingly, this is another point of hypocrisy within the U.S. Government. Long has it been pushing programs which encourage equality among all humans, yet at the same time it has allowed doctors to pressure couples into aborting babies simply because of the risk of disabilities. Those with Down’s do not lead lesser lives, and are not lesser humans. They simply live life differently. If the doctors push abortion for these sorts of disabilities, what others could be next?

Conclusion

Abortion is not a choice, but rather a violation of the rights of being of the fetus. Just having the potential, and ability, to grow into a member of the human species is a guarantee of right to life. There should be no abortions on demand; simply getting rid of unwanted babies. The choice to create the baby is the choice you have. Once you have done the action, you must face the consequences. There are many other options to avoid pregnancy; abortion after the fact should not be one of them in most cases. As a result of the dehumanization of fetuses, and the pushing of the “right” to end this life, abortion has become normalized. Abortion is not a right; it is a termination of innocent life- murder.

Politician Syndrome: How Perceptions Affect Actions

Through all the years of American politics, there has not been a time in which the members of the political realm have been so closely scrutinized by the news organizations and the citizens to whom they serve as now. Political actions have penetrated the fabric of American existence like no time before. With the 24/7 availability of information and news on the Internet, and readily available headlines and stories on the cable news networks, the interest in the political realm has skyrocketed. The turmoil of the early part of this new century and the strong politics of the last administration began the push to get educated on politics, and the most recent election inspired further action through hope or dismay, and these strong emotions encouraged many to get involved and get educated about the workings of the political system. These same emotions have given Americans yet another criteria with which to judge the motives of others, and through this new system, the ways in which Americans interact has been changed for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps the best way to prove the current mindset would be a story. My father is a hard-nosed conservative Republican, and the last election had inspired him to fight against the new administration and its possible changes that it is pushing. Just the other day, we were out measuring windows on a job, and he had asked me to go get the book with the different styles of windows in it so the customer could see his options. In the short span of me leaving to get the book and coming back, I overheard the conversation about the healthcare plan that is currently in the Senate. From my understanding, the customer and one of his workers did not think the plan sounded so bad, which my father disagreed with. Though it was a friendly enough conversation, there was visible tension as the two sides exchanged views. I found it interesting that in the two or three minutes while I was gone, the conversation had gone from windows, to healthcare. About 2 years ago, I highly doubt this exchange would have even happened, especially leading from something completely unrelated.

This sort of story is becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on. Even in the earliest stage of the President’s administration, heated conversations can be heard anywhere, whether in a McDonald’s or various Internet message boards. Clearly, from the story with the windows, my father felt the need to inform and attempt to change the view of the contractors on the healthcare subject, but why? I believe that the motivation to inform or argue about a view is entirely from the perception or opinion of those who hold an opposite viewpoint of oneself.

In these times, political stance is basically a judgment of one’s character. From a left wing, or liberal, point of a view, conservatism is often looked down on as either backwards, heartless, or even as a failure. To a right wing conservative, a liberal is ignorant, socialist, or corrupt. Even to those who claim middle ground, the extremes of both sides are seen as zealots. These perceptions, or judgments, have been increasingly prevalent in the recent years. The news networks and various commentators from both sides have further ingrained these views into a willing public.

Since these views are now so common throughout the country, it has become harder to simply be content to make light conversation, or to have simple human interaction. These relationships have now become routes to tell one’s political views, a crusade of sorts, in order to further whatever view you happen to subscribe to. Every conversation is an opportunity to argue or change minds, or enlighten those ignorant to the ways of the world. This is the result of constant exposure to political ideas and debate. The need for change in government, the need to save American freedoms, the need to fix the recession and healthcare have all resulted in further polarization of the population of America.

It is difficult to have healthy human interaction with these views in place. There is obviously a need for a political system to run the government, and there is a need to fix some things in society, but there is no excuse to let someone’s political stance define their character. There are many good hearted liberals, and there are many corrupt conservatives. In the human equation, there is so much more besides black and white, but these perceptions have turned brother against brother and friend against friend. Relationships are possible, but if the subject of conversation is always about political happenings, and debate, then it is likely that the relationship will be strained at best.

Perceptions are extremely common in many areas beyond the political debate, and are as equally damaging to relationships. In the end, these relationships are what makes up a nation, and are the sole factor in the success of a nation. There is a need to be educated in the views and possible results of any given course of action, and the right to vote is a valuable tool in helping define what the country will become, but these should not get in the way of meaningful friendships or any other form of relationship. It is often hard to reign in the passion for a subject, but if it means a healthier relationship, it must be done.