Abortion in the Constitutions View

Abortion should be a choice among women, and should not be taken by the government at all it is the womens body not anybody else's. Abortion is a medical procedure in which a female ends her pregnancy when it is an embryo or fetus months before due. Abortion has been around for years but has also been despised by many and looked at from a point of view that it is murder. Arguments that occur are that these women who get impregnated should deal with it and have the baby, and that if they were not ready they should have been more careful with themselves. But many of these unwanted pregnancies can not be stopped because the lack of education given to teenagers, lack of condoms or birth control contraceptives which are being kept from many who can not afford it.

People who live in poor conditions do not have access to the contraceptives which are needed to prevent pregnancy so they turn to abortions and adoption. But adoption centers are just as bad because there is no room for these unwanted children that women will be forced to have if government passes a law that removes availability to abortions and birth control contraceptives. The crime punishment of procuring an abortion with consent is 2-5 years and without the consent is doubled, this being said physicians choose not to do an abortion because they may be afraid of the consequences and these women are stuck with something they do not want. (410 U.S 113) Abortions contribute to a female's health too, if the female is going to die because of an embryo they should have all rights to save their own life and get rid of it. Allowing females to do this is giving them their pursuit of happiness which is promised by the U.S Constitution.

A case that went all the way to the Supreme Court was ROE v. WADE, the case consisted of a woman named Roe who wanted to terminate her pregnancy but was not able to because in Texas they did not allow it if she wasn't going to be medically affected or die. She could not afford to leave to another state for an abortion and needed to get one done in Texas. She began to claim that the statutes Texas had were unconstitutional and violated her rights and privacy under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendment. She then began to sue on behalf of herself and all other women. (410 U.S 113) Also included in the supreme court case were the Does a childless couple. Their argument was that the wife has a serious medical condition and if she were to get pregnant it would have a horrible medical effect on her and maybe her child as well. They argued the same amendments as Roe, because she was claiming that if there was a failure in her birth control contraceptive she could not get the abortion she needs to stay safe and keep harm away from herself. If a pregnancy ensues they will not be able to terminate the fetus and they also felt that maybe they were not ready to become parents and should not have to be burdened with an unwanted child. But their point of argument was not a case or actual controversy and it may not even occur that Mrs. Doe gets pregnant as stated in the case.(410 U.S 113) As I continued to read the case report it was mentioned that a law passed was the Abortion Act of 1967 which allowed a physician to conduct an abortion if two other physicians overlooked it and saw a reasonable reason to do it. They were allowed to give an abortion if the woman's life was threatened or if the child is to come out with mental abnormalities that would cause them to be seriously handicapped. (410 U.S 113)

Women should be allowed an abortion no matter the circumstance because they have free will and rights with their body that should not be taken from them. In an article by Rebecca Todd Peters she states that over 6.4 million women get pregnant and half of them are by accident and also that half get abortions. She also says that One-Quarter of these women decide to get an abortion at the age of 30 and others by age 45. It is mentioned that procuring an abortion is safer than actually giving birth and is highly recommended if the female knows having a child will harm her. (Rebecca Todd Peters, Pp. 129) Peters says that there are anti abortionists who are constantly trying to set legislations to limit abortions and strip women of their choice. These groups come from public interest law and policy groups to activist organizations who are becoming the face of the anti abortion movement in the United States.(Rebecca Todd Peters, Pp. 130) In many places these Anti Abortionists are trying to regulate that an embryo is legally defined as a person and if this were to happen it would potentially ban all forms of abortion and make birth control illegal. (Rebecca Todd Peters, pp.130) AUL and their supporters believe that pregnant women who go towards an abortion do not have the intellectual capacity to know what they are doing. They want a legislation that will require counseling, ultrasounds, waiting periods and restrictions on medical procedures under their belief that women are ignorant. However this legislation is already in over thirty-five states already now require this legislation that women get counseling before having an abortion be done to them. Although I think that most of the states that do this are just trying to change the womens mind by making them feel sorry for the embryo and to double think about the choice they are making. Rebecca even mentions it herself that not only are the states providing a basic sex-education class for women about pregnancy before allowing them to terminate their pregnancy, several states are using the counseling sessions to intimidate women into changing their minds. (Rebecca Todd Peters, pp.134) These policies make is seem like the women do not think before deciding they want an abortion and so now over ten states also have a legislation that women obtain an ultrasound even when not necessary. On behalf of this occurring Rebecca states that a legislation that is based in paternalistic attitudes about women's ignorance.. And the need to protect women from themselves reflects a blatant disregard for the moral decision-making capacities of pregnant women as human beings. (Rebecca Todd Peters, pp. 135) This is not a legislation that is fair for women, trying to make them feel at fault simply over their choice on their own body.

A point to speak more on was that having a child when unwanted would end up in a foster home or orphanage. How could citizens who are pro life be sure that these unwanted children will be in good hands and live good lives. In a study from Marshall Medoff he explains the effects of being either pro choice or pro life. In his studies he talks about how pro life supporters want the life of a child to happen that the embryo at such a young stage is considered a human being with rights and shall not be harmed. He says ... if the state restrictive laws reflect this respect and regard for human life, then one would expect such states to provide a significant range of services for the well-being of infants and children. This is something that is not considered, the government puts all these efforts to take these rights from women without seeing everything that is actually occuring after birth. They don't look onto the welfare, physical health, mental health, and economic family status in which this child will be brought into. What Medoff did was analyze states that were pro-life and states that were pro-choice and in his studies put the results. In the tables shown it is proven that Pro-life states are not having protective insurance on the children and these children are not receiving the mental health care they may need. All I am stating this point of my research on this topic of abortion is why should the government set all these policies and laws on abortion when after the child is born they have no significance to anyone anymore. They force the hand of the women, who has every right to abort a child of mistake, but when it all comes down to the well being of the child they are forgotten by the very same people that fought for them to be alive.

Cite this page