Janetzke 1

Lauren Janetzke

Droski

English 11B

25 March 2020

Abortion: a moral dilemma

To begin, the definition of abortion is, “a medical or surgical procedure that deliberately

ends a pregnancy before an embryo or fetus is born,” (Gale). There is major controversy

surrounding abortions, and whether or not they should be legal. It’s not black or white, but there

are two viewpoints to abortion which are pro-life and pro-choice. Personally, I am pro-choice

and beleive that abortions should be open to woman with no restrictions if they want one.

Abortions should be legal to keep children out of the foster care system, it’s a woman’s body it

should be a woman’s choice, and for health issues.

In the trail of Roe v. Wade it was ruled that an abortion is protected by the consitution

through the first trimester. After that the chances of being able to get an abortion are lessened due

to restrictions by the state and/or the risk that the pregnancy could do to the woman’s health.

Pretty much since this case abortion has remained a controversial hot topic. There have been

many laws enforced to regulate and restrict an abortion and there are many aspects that go along

with either agreeing or disagreeing with getting the procedure. People who are against abortion

are reffered to as“pro-life”. Their stances on it are that all abortion is murder and morally wrong.

Religion is often used in their protest against abortion. Although some pro-life people may

support abortions in the cases of rape or incest while other pro-life people strictly think all

abortion is wrong. On the other hand, people who support safe and legal abortions are reffered to
 Janetzke 2

as pro-choice. They believe that abortion is okay as long as it is being done safely. Just like in

pro-life there are variatons of pro-choice. Some pro-choice people believe that there should be no

restrictions on abortion while others belive that some restricitions such as minors needing

parental consent or a waiting period before the procedure is okay. Most abortions are preformed

in the first trimester. First trimester aboritions are less dangerous and it is safer for the woman’s

health and has fewer risks. The most common procedure is referred to as the vaccum abortion

which just removes the tissue through a tube (Gale). It is safer than other surgeries that would

require to have labor be induced. Certain abortions do not require surgery and are considered

both safe and effective until the ninth week (Gale). These types of abortions are called medical

abortions and the most common drugs used in these type of abortions are mifepristone and

misoprostol (Gale). Together these two pills block a hormone needed for pregnancy and causes

the uterus to contract and the embryo is forced out. Medical abortions aren’t as effective as

surgical abortions but there is a lesser risk for infection. In 2015 in Arkansas and Alaska there

was legislation passed that said doctors had to inform their patients that medical abortions could

be reversed by taking progesterone (Gale). This legislation was passed in many more states even

though health care professionals are saying that it is “irresponsible” because there is no evidence

that medical abortions can be reversed. Abortions were performed in the United States and

weren’t restricted until Connecticut passed the anti-abotion law in 1821. Up until Roe v. Wade

whether or not abortion was legal was up to state legislatures. Many states passed abortion as a

felony crime and was illegal. Women who lived in states where they couldn’t get them risked

their health by getting them done and the health care workers risked their careers. Roe v. Wade

declared that restrictive abortion laws was a violation of privacy to women due to the Due
 Janetzke 3

Process Clause in the 14th amendment. The outcome of Roe v. Wade was that a woman could

could get an abortion on her terms as long as she was in her first trimester of the pregnancy still,

but the state governments could also put bans on the second trimester abortion after the fetus had

reached viability. The definition of viability is, “fetus's ability to survive outside of the womb,”

(Gale). This held true unless the pregnancy endangered the woman’s health. Although in each

state there’s a different standard for what viability is and as to what qualifies as endangering the

mother’s health. Due to Doe v. Bolton the court changed its decision in Roe v. Wade by

prohibiting certain laws that would restrict an abortion. It also defined what would be a threat to

a mother during a post-viability abortion. The outcome of the two cases resulted in a lower death

rate among pregnant women. The National Right to Life committee and Americans United for

Life were founded which created a legal defense to the supreme court’s ruling. Unborn children

have certain rights in other cases such as inheriting property and a woman killed while pregnant

can be considered acts of manslaughter in some states (Gale). This shows how inconsistent the

Supreme Court was with its ruling and that angered a lot of people. There have been some cases

that have challenged the ruling of Roe v. Wade case. In the case of Planned Parenthood v.

Danforth it helped abortion rights by getting rid of laws in Missouri which were restricing the

right to abortions. On the other hand, the Maher v. Roe ruled that state governments could

choose to deny any public funds for an abortion which hindered the access to an abortion. This

outcome was a result of the Hyde Amendment which didn’t include abortion on the list of

medical services that would be covered by medicaid (Gale). This meant that people from lower

incomes could not get access to an abortion because they wouldn’t have the money for it. In the

1990’s there were many new laws that placed restrictions on clinics and medical offices that
 Janetzke 4

would provide abortions. This hindered the ability for women to get access to clinics and these

laws quickly became referred to as Targeted Regulation for for Abortion Providers. In the case

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt the court ruled that the Texas rules were in violation of the

Supreme Court’s ruling because they did not provide enough medical benefits for women who

were planning on getting an abortion (Gale). According to Title X of the Public Health Service

Act it provides grants for family planning programs. Many places had put a restriction that made

it so the Title X funds weren’t being given to places that provided abortions. Additionally, Trump

put even more restrictions that withheld money from organizations that counseled and infrormed

people about abortions (Gale). There were also nonprofit organizations that tried convincing

women not to get abortions which were reffered to as Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Reproductive

rights advocates said that these organizations gave inaccurate information to these women along

with many other things. This resulted in California passing FACT act which meant that the

people involved in these organizations had to provide evidence of a medical license along with a

list of other rules that they didn’t agree with. An organization known as the NIFLA with 1,400

unlicensed CPC’s filed a lawsuit against California (Gale). They won because the FACT act was

ruled to be a violation of freedom of speech. With Trump being the new president and two new

conservative judges on the supreme court there some new restrictions on abortion. Even more

new state laws in 2019 introduced on how health care providers could deliver abortions. These

state laws were things such as reporting requirements for facilities that perfom abortions and not

allowing doctors to give medical abortions over the phone and not in person (Gale). This spiked

the worry that Roe v. Wade could be overturned which would allow states to regulate abortions

the way they’d like to. As well as pro-choice movements there are also pro-life movements.
 Janetzke 5

Many pro-life activists will stand outside of clinics that provide abortions and harrass the women

to not get an abortion. This resulted in congress passing the FACE act in 1994 which made

blocking the entrances of places that provided abortions a federal offense and made it so one

could be fined for it (Gale). There are even some pro-life activists who do acts of terrorism to

prove their point. Groups such as Operation Save America, Operation Rescue, and Army of God

have all been involved in acts of terrorism. These acts involve bombings, harrasment of health

care workers, and even the murder of George Tiller who provided abortions. Some activists in

the organization Center for Medical Progress even went as far as recording Planned Parenthood

employees discussing abortions for underage sex trafficking victims, fetal tissues sales, and

sex-selective abortions. This video was released and gained a lot of attention. Even though the

two people responsible for recording and releasing the video got charged with fifteen felony

counts, the recording of abortion providers still continued. Since judges can affirm or overrule

decisions by lower judges, pro-life organizations know the importance of getting federal judges

to agree with them (Gale). In 1982 a group of conservatives founded the Federalist Society in

1982 which was made up of judges who all wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Currently, five of

the Supreme Justices are members of the Federalist Society. If there is a case that comes to court

concerning restrictions on abortions then there is a high probablity that the outcome will be in

their favor.

Firstly, the reason I am pro-choice is becase if women are forced to have these babies that

they don’t want then they will most likely end up in the foster care system. Children in the foster

care system can find good homes, but it is not the case for all children. While being placed in a

foster care system may seem like a good alternative to an abortion it does have its cons. One con
 Janetzke 6

is that some children are placed in unstable homes where they aren’t provided with the care that

they need. Houses could be unfit and not safe for children and they could be endangering the

child by putting them into that kind of environment. They could also be being abused or

mistreated. Not only does being put into a foster care system put some children at risk, but it

could also lead to homelessness for some. Many teens who grow up in the system until the age of

emancipation (18) will often end up homeless because they are not taught basic skills in the

shelters or even some of the foster homes. There is no state law that says that it’s mandatory that

kids in the system have to be taught any kind of life skills outside of the shelters. Even in the

cases where they are somewhat being taught life skills they feel as if they aren’t helpful enough.

This sets them up for failure as they don’t know how to be on their own, and they have to adapt

to it quickly which often leads to being homeless. For most children they aren’t cut off from their

parents or put out completely on their own once they hit 18, but for children in the foster care

system this is a harsh reality. These kids are being sent out on their own without a plan of what

they’re doing, no source of income, and no one to rely on if something goes wrong. To show,

here is data conducted by Human Rights, “90 percent, had no source of income when they left

foster care and were expected to be on their own,'' (Calvin). This just shows how many children

are being set up for failure after they leave the systems. A statistic shows that out of 20,000

leaving the foster care system 20% will become homeless (Calvin). That means 4,000 young

adults will end up on the streets. As if that statistic alone wasn’t bad enough, here is another one,

“Research shows that youth emancipating from foster care are more likely than young people in

the general population to have educational deficits and experience mental health problems,

economic instability, criminal victimization, and early child bearing,” (Calvin). With all of these
 Janetzke 7

factors it is just setting up these children for failure. Without the proper education on both school

and life skills, a support system, and an actual plan for life after emancipation , foster children

are going to be at a disadvantage. Therefore, it is best that women are allowed to have abortions

so that we can prevent the amount of children in foster systems and prevent the suffering and

homlessness of these children.

Secondly, I am pro-choice because I belive if a woman is carrying the fetus then it should

ultimately be the woman’s choice whether or not she wants to get the procedure. What I mean by

this is that there are so many people who have nothing to do with these women wanting to get

abortions that are trying to restrict and prevent women from getting one. It’s not their body so

why is the choice up to them? Making a woman have parental consent or consent of the spouse

before getting the procedure isn’t right because they won’t be carrying that baby for nine months.

It’s a violation of privacy and the woman’s right by allowing these types of things. The main

argument that these people will present to guilt the women who want to get the procedure is that

the fetus has a right too. Which is true the fetus can have rights, but overall shouldn’t the human

being carrying it have the ultimate decision due to her rights? This quote from the article sums it

up, “Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump

the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always,” ( Williams). No woman should

be forced to keep going on with a pregnancy if it doesn’t fit in their life at the moment. Only that

person who is carrying the fetus would know what is best for them. What if a woman was

carrying a fetus who she knew she couldn’t provide for? What if a woman was carrying a fetus

that was a result from rape? Absolutely no one should have the right to make calls on what a

woman should do with her body because no one understands what she’s going through except for
 Janetzke 8

her. Therefore, if a women wants to have an abortion she should be able to without any

restrictions because it her body and her choice.

Lastly, I am pro-choice because I believe that if a woman has a certain health problem or

carrying a fetus to full term will be a risk for her, then she should have the option to abort. First

of all, there is a ban named the Federal Abortion Ban that can make abortions at the 12th week

illegal and also any abortion in the second trimester is illegal. It is still illegal even if the abortion

in the second trimester was to protect the woman’s health. Multiple court cases have ruled that

banning an abortion that is in sole purpose of the mother’s health in the second trimester is

prohibited in many states. If there were bans to be put on abortions without exceptions for

women’s health it could seriously harm the mother if she has to carry the baby to full term, and

she could even be risking her life. For example, a woman who was 32 weeks pregnant and was

diabetic discovered that her baby had no chance of survival. Since she was diabetic any other

type of surgery besides an abortion would be too risky for her health, so to spare her health she

had an abortion. Another example of how a pregnancy could cause risk to a mother’s health is

heart disease. To quote, “doctors report that many pregnant women with heart-valve disorders

die each year from blood clots which, absent pregnancy, would not be life threatening,” (Roleff).

In both of these cases it is absolutely necessary to have abortions done in order to keep the

woman safe. Therefore, if a woman has a certain health problem or can’t carry the fetus full term

then she shouldn’t have to be forced to keep going on with the pregnancy and risk her health and

life.
 Janetzke 9

The other viewpoint on abortions is pro-life. People who are pro-life believe that abortion

is murder and morally wrong. Some may even say that in the case of rape or incest it is still

wrong and that it is a crime. In this article I read, it argues that there are economic consequences

due to aboritons. Since future generations are not being born due to being aborted it is causing

costly entitlements and not enough wage earners to pay for them (Napolitano). This statistic

proves that point, “Soon 40 percent of federal tax revenues will be dedicated to interest on the

federal debt, and most of that borrowing has been to pay for entitlements,” (Napolitano).

Napolitano made a point and supported it with evidence, but I think it is a stretch. I understand

that abortions keep the population from going up, but that doesn’t mean that the population is too

low and we’re going into debt due to just aboritons. Many couples don’t have children simply

because they don’t want to. Wouldn’t that keep the population from going up too? There are

many factors as to why the population is going up, so to pin it all on just abortion is just foolish.

My claim is still correct because if a woman’s life is going to be saved over a fetus that could

potentially harm her, then an abortion should absolutely be allowed. One should not be able to

argue that an unborn fetus’ life is more important than a woman’s life due to the population not

increasing.

In conclusion, abortion should be legal and there should be no restrictions on it. There are

still places that have bans on abortions which restrict women from getting them. Abortions

should be legal to keep children out of the foster system, it’s a woman’s body it should be a

woman’s choice, and for health issues.

Works Cited

"Abortion." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999336/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=e1

9acf10. Accessed 17 Mar. 2020.

"Abortion Bans Without Exceptions Endanger Women's Health." Are Abortion Rights Threatened?,

edited by Tamara L. Roleff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010869208/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=af9

1969b. Accessed 17 Mar. 2020. Originally published in NARAL Pro-Choice America Fact

Sheet, vol. 1, 1 Jan. 2012.

Calvin, Elizabeth. "Homelessness Is a Serious Problem Among Foster Youth." Homelessness,

edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010812209/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=10

497e86. Accessed 17 Mar. 2020. Originally published as "My So-Called Emancipation,"

Human Rights Watch, 2010, pp. 1-8.

Napolitano, Andrew. "Abortion Is Immoral, Even in the Case of Rape or Incest." Abortion, edited by

Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010102431/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=21

9d930f. Accessed 17 Mar. 2020. Originally published as "Is Rape a Moral Justification for

Abortion?" Reason.com, 23 Aug. 2012.

Williams, Mary Elizabeth. "The Choice to Abort Is Up to Women." Abortion, edited by Noël Merino,

Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010102429/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=73

5ee123. Accessed 17 Mar. 2020. Originally published as "So What If Abortion Ends Life?"

http://www.Salon.com, 23 Jan. 2013