Gardner 1
Jillian Gardner Ms. Maenhardt ENG 1010 3 Dec. 2013
Abortion
Our nation is divided on many topics; but, few are more blurred and controversial than the heated topic of abortion. In the 70's, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to completely restrict abortion because it is the womans right to terminate her pregnancy up to three months from conception. The ruling made it so states could not outlaw all abortions; but, made it the states responsibility to find a balance between protecting the life and health of both the mother and the child. Since that ruling, our nation has been split between two groups of advocates, those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice. It is so important to have an educated opinion on the topic. Radicals from both sides wish to pass extreme laws and if you dont agree with them you must have a voice and protect your rights as you think they should be. I wrote this paper to give people that education they need to formulate an opinion. The three arguments I want to focus on include interpretations of rights laws, questioning the integrity of the abortion industry, and of course the classic arguments of science. Lastly, I will discuss the religious and then, briefly discuss my own point of view and how my research has affected it.
Being such a huge topic there are many ways to tackle the issue and not limit your-self to questioning the morality of the choice. For example discussing whether or not it is a right of women to have an abortion, and if abortion industry is in it for the money does not necessarily discuss the morality of the choice itself. This provides us with not just the two points of view of being pro-life or pro-choice but focuses in on the points of view each of arguments comes from.
Gardner 2
The first argument I listed was the interpretation of rights laws. Both sides are able to argue their points using the constitution and declaration of independence. An interpretation given by pro-life is that abortion directly contradicts the declaration of independence. In the declarations it states that all men have certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Abortion Procon) Pro-life argues that abortion prevents the first unalienable right to life.
On the other hand Jane Roe, representing pro-choice, argued that the laws in the constitution allowed for abortion. Roe argued that out lawing abortion forces women into motherhood without a choice, which she believed was a kind of involuntary servitude. The constitutions 13th amendment protects the people from involuntary servitude. That is how she came to the conclusion that it was her right as a woman to have her own say over her body. This interpretation of the amendment was a milestone for feminism and womens rights.
The second argument brings the abortion industry and clinics into question. The abortion industry itself is criticized by many pro-lifers who claim that abortion providers are businesses that are more interested in making money rather than helping women. The abortion industry generates an estimated $831 million annually. Even though abortions can cost anywhere from 350 to 1000 dollars clinics still promote themselves as being cheap or inexpensive.(Abortion Procon) Its understandable people have a hard time seeing how these clinics are mostly interested in helping women.
However as pointed out by Nadine Strossen, these clinics provide women with a safe clean place with medically trained staff to have safe abortions. When abortion was illegal, 1.2 million US women choose illegal abortions anyway which caused deaths between 5,000 to
Gardner 3
17,000 each year, estimates vary because of secrecy. (Strossen) In 2006 it was estimated that maternal deaths are as high as 68,000 per year other in countries where abortion is still illegal. (Abortion Procon)
The third and final argument is the scientific argument, which is considered the classic argument of pro-lifers. Scott Klusendorf brings up a very interesting and strong approach to the topic by stating that the answer to whether or not abortion is right or wrong begins with the question, What is it we are killing? and claims that is the first logical question that should be asked. He then presents scientific evidence of fact that a zygote is a living human organism. At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian tube, a new entity comes into existence. Zygote is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the Morula and Blastocyst (Schwarzwalder). We know that fertilization is the combining the DNA of one haploid parent cell with another. Therefore this small cell has DNA which is in fact human. Scott also gives an interesting analogy of relating the process of human development to development of a polaroid picture. He says, Imagine you got a picture of a rare Jaguar car and while you are waiting for that picture to emerge from the camera I come up to you, take the camera, rip the film out; and while youre waiting for the film to develop I rip the picture in half. Then I say to you, whats the big deal? There was no jaguar in that picture. It was just a brown smudge you would say what do you mean only a brown smudge? The Jaguar in the picture was already there. We just couldnt see it yet!
Gardner 4
He relates the embryo to the developing picture and relates abortion to ripping up the paper and saying nothing is there.
Above, I explained how Pro-lifers claim that because the embryo is human it has just as many rights as any other living person. Pro-choicer's refute that by arguing that is personhood or when the human becomes a being that then it has rights. Nadine Strossen agrees with Scott by saying that she does not deny that at conception a human is created but some scientists do believe that it is a process and that a zygote is not equal to an embryo and that an embryo/fetus is not equal to a baby that has been born. She basically uses the logic Scott uses in his car analogy against him. An example would be a tadpole v a frog. A tadpole is not a frog and vice versa. These two things are separated by the stages of development.
Lastly I wanted to discuss the most main stream, or talked about pro-life argument is what I will call the God argument or religious point of view. It is because of its popularity in the media that I must mention it. Let me begin by saying that it is important to be aware of logical fallacies. In my research I found that the God argument is based on one such logical fallacy. To summarize: Abortion breaks gods commandment thou shalt not kill. You are a murderer and you are going to hell. That is a summary but you get the main idea. I saw almost exactly that in so many discussion threads it was frightening. Let me explain two huge problems with that statement. The first part of that sentence pushes the position that it is murder in the eyes of god. Nadine reminds us that in our pluralistic democracy, law cannot be based only on a matter of religious belief. The second problem with that statement is that it would be considered ad hominem. According to Purdue this is an attack on the person rather than his or her opinions.
Gardner 5
Thus we see that using JUST religious ideals to prove a point is moot; and, that we must not insult one another.
In conclusion I just wanted to say that I am glad I picked abortion to be my topic. It was my goal to provide the strongest points so that one can form a well-informed opinion whether it is pro-life or pro-choice. While I was doing my research I had some small personal battles because of what I had learned. I am pro-choice but at the beginning of my research when I could find very little support for my side I began to really doubt my stance. I had to dig deeper not just for the paper but for myself. I learned all I could about both sides and did my best to see the logic behind every argument. I hope that those who read this essay learned more about the three arguments presented from each side and to be aware of logical fallacies. Whether you choose to be pro-life or pro-choice be well informed and defend your opinion.
