FREE ESSAY ON ANTI ABORTION

ANTI ABORTION

Anti Abortion
Since the Darwinian Revolution of the 19th century our society has turned upside down.
Everything under the sun had become questionable, the origin of life, how we came to be,
where are we headed and what to do in the here all became questions in life. But one of
the greatest impacts of this new age thinking is its effect on our Old World values.
Western societies values, morals and ethics became debatable, with some people striving
for change and others clinging for stability. Battle lines had been drawn and the
Liberals and Conservatives were ready to duke it out on a number of issues. One of these
debates centers on a woman's right to have and abortion. According to the Webster's
dictionary and abortion is defined as a miscarry, something misshapen or unnatural. An
abortion is a procedure in which an embryo or fetus is prohibited from developing by
artificial means. One could argue that this is next to murder. How can we as a society
sanction the murdering of developing babies? Also it can equally be stated that abortion
is unnatural and a health hazard to women who have undergone the procedure. Whatever the
case, abortion should be outlawed because it is immoral and mothers should face the
responsibilities of their actions.
Many arguments can be used in order to put an end to abortion or at least in order to
establish dialogue. One of the oldest arguments against abortion is the religious
standpoint. Western society (Canada & U.S.A.) is historically a Judeo-Christian culture
with Judeo-Christian values. Although in recent times we have become an increasingly
pluristic society the Old World thinking is still at the heart of our social relations
and laws. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" thus prohibiting people from harming
others or themselves. Abortion and its advocates violate this law. They seek to change
one of the most fundamental values of our society. Pro-choice under this stance is
equated with murder and "playing God". One may raise the question, how can a minority
inflict its views of the majority? According to Francis X. Meenan, this is a false
assumption. He goes on to claim that those who favor abortion on demand are the real
minority (Bender & Leone, 97). He also claims that the issue of abortion is a moral
debate and cannot be settled by numbers. So even if pro-choice advocates outnumbered
pro-life advocates, this would prove or settle nothing (Bender & Leone, 97). This stance
claims that we should focus more on moral principals and eradicate the practice of
abortion in our society.
The Biblical understanding of life isn't the only religious argument that opposes
abortion and its practice. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and many other world faiths have a
similar stance on the topic at hand. Hinduism claims that the soul enters the embryo at
the time of conception and abortion should hence be outlawed except in the case of rape
or incest. Buddhism takes a similar stance and claims abortion is "murdering", yet also
states that each case should be individually analyzed. Islam considers abortion as a
moral crime and sees life (its start finish) as the jurisdiction of God. Islamic law
states that abortion is illegal except in those situations in which the woman's life is
in jeopardy. The question that arises after examining these numerous perspectives is how
can these practices which violate or threaten our fundamental beliefs be tolerated?
The critics of the ant-abortion perspective, "pro-choice", have arguments of their own.
First and foremost they argue that biblical law and its perspectives are codes of life
for believers and in a pluralistic society this view shouldn't be a reference or a
deciding factor. One could imagine how it would be to have another foreign view imposed
on us so why would anyone impose their views on others or the society at large? Other
pro-choice arguments have went to claim that abortion isn't immoral because morality is
subjective hence people decide on their own what is moral or immoral. According to Daniel
C. Maguire, even religious people can disagree on abortion. One ground for going against
religion as an argument against abortion is the fact that the Church is dominated by male
influence (bender & Leone, 101). Maguire wants to know how and why men have the authority
to dictate what women decide to do with their bodies (Bender & Leone, 101). Is it "life"
they seek to protect or is it the female "sexuality" they wish to control? The Catholic
Code of Canon excommunicates one for aborting a fertilized egg, but not for killing a
baby after birth. This hypocrisy thus discredits the religious argument against
abortion.
The counter-criticism, which in turn disproves of abortion claims that advocates of
pro-choice are imposing their values on the greater population and not the other way
around. In my opinion this is a good counter-strike because too often pro-choice
individuals claim that the other side is being closed minded and yet seem to neglect
their own errors.
The second argument, which opposes abortion, states that abortion shouldn't be a woman's
personal choice. Women only play one role in having a baby. There is a man's role
involved and there is a new life, which under the banner of abortion would be
extinguished. A pro-abortionist denies humanity to the fetus at all, a stance that shows
a lack of moral character (Wennberg, 57). This perspective states that the growing fetus
is an autonomous life form that has its own rights regardless and separate of the woman.
I would argue that females who have undergone an abortion have infringed on the life of
another human being in order to satisfy their own needs. Other arguments opposing
abortion state that if we keep abortion legal it will become a choice ethic or a new form
of birth control (Wennberg, 9). Life will be a privilege only for a chosen few, the value
of human life will be cheapened with people only having babies when it is convenient.
Critics of this argument claim abortion should be a woman's personal choice. They state
that true woman's liberation is intertwined with the right to bear children or the
decision to abort their unborn child at will (Saarni, 104). Further claims have stated
that the pro-choice argument is embedded in a larger issue which the dominant
male-oriented society wants to avoid, that being feminism (Wennberg, 68). This statement
regards abortion as a social issue which opens the doors for women's liberation and gives
them power to make decisions in their own life. As one could imagine this isn't a view
that would be favored by male society. Other criticism claims that women who are opposed
to abortion do so because they value human well being and those politicians who seek to
outlaw abortion come in the name of "family values" (Saarni, 115). Thus pro-choice isn't
seen as a stance, which is concerned, about the well being of people. In a quest to
establish a woman's choice the government is viewed as a powerful entity. Perhaps the
issue of choice should be left to the individual instead of the state (Wennberg, 82). In
my opinion the right to bear children or not shouldn't be just a woman's decision. Why
must women's liberation be related to her independent choice and not with a socially
intellectual choice where all parties find a middle ground? The statement that the
abortion argument is a part of a larger sphere, which includes feminism and that the
powers that be are trying to put an end to this, is based on speculation. If this were
true why is it that women have gained power all across the board in all walks of life
only to be oppressed in this issue. As for the women who seek the well being for life
they naturally side up with the pro-life perspective. To claim that politicians with
their own personal agendas are manipulating these women is saying that these women value
life alongside their male counter parts and that is the reasoning why many strive towards
pro-life.
The argument that legal abortion harms public health is yet another reason to re-evaluate
the case of abortion. The fact is that abortion is a complicated procedure that can harm
a woman's body, disabling from bearing children. Complications include hemorrhaging and
laceration of the cesuix (Richardson, 36). Other studies done by Stallworthy, Moolga,
Oker and Walsh have reported the complications that occurred during 1,182 legal
abortions. While their where no deaths, 9.5% of the patients required blood transfusions,
4.2% had cervical lacerations and 1.2% of the patients uteri were perforated.
Post-abortion infection occurred in 27% of these women. Other complications in pregnancy
and with abortions state that there is a correlation between pre-mature birth and a
woman's exposure to abortion (Richardson, 42). This perhaps has to do with the fact that
the cervix could be damaged after the use of instruments to perform abortion (Richardson,
42). In my opinion the facts speak for themselves. Abortion decreases public health and
is a dangerous procedure.
Other arguments for abortion stem from claims that abortion actually guards public safety
by providing an outlet for young women who would have otherwise had a "back alley"
abortion (Richardson, 57). Advocates of this argument would most likely state that since
the legalization of abortion an account of accurate records has been kept thus catering
to health concerns. Other statements claim that since 1973 the number of women,
percentage wise, who are using safer methods has increased (Richardson, 51).
In my personal opinion these arguments simply state how legalized abortion has reduce the
black market. It doesn't attempt to debate on the ethics of the matter, or doesn't
mention the risk factor associated with abortion. I'm sure military force monitoring our
cities could reduce crime, yet is this a solution which server the best interest? To
argue that society is better off with legalized abortion because it reduces the black
market isn't a very good solution. It is a decision that is poor, unethical, and most of
all a tremendous health hazard.
Another argument, which is often cited as a justification for abortion, is one's economic
concerns. Many women who get pregnant but are poor are the first to get an abortion. It
seems like that the struggles of modern life create an obstacle for those women in which
a child becomes a burden (Saarni, 17). Is this what our society has come to? Is this the
condition of our mothers? It seems like more and more women are redirected towards
abortion as a solution to their problems (Saarni, 19). Human life now comes with a price
tag, it is no longer regarded as sacred but is seen as a disposable entity when "the
going gets tough". Society no longer values life and is willing to, or demanding that
women, especially poor or black women control the number of babies they have or the
government will control it for them (Saarni, 24).
The critics take the other stance and claim that economics is one of the most important
reasons we should keep legal abortions. Legal abortions provides an avenue for
underprivileged women who cannot support another child in this world (Saarni, 29). They
claim that abortion is in the best interest for the mother, child and the taxpayers
(Saarni, 29). They also claim that abortion services are an equalizer which maintain low
birth rates amongst today's women (Saarni, 30). This means that women us abortion as a
method of birth control, which enables them to remain independent, carry out a career,
and live a free-spirited life.
I personally believe that economics isn't a good reason to abort a life. If one can't
afford to bring a life into this world then take all necessary precautions to make sure
you won't get pregnant. I don't think abortion is in the best interest of anyone but the
selfish mother who has willingly destroyed the life of an unborn baby. 
Finally, it's a shame if modern women feel that abortion is some sort of birth control.
It is unfortunate that life isn't valued like it once was and that independence and
financial gain gave become the new objectives in life. It is perhaps this mentality to
equate abortion with birth control and thus female liberation that is the most dangerous
to traditional family values. What does this say about us as a society when we begin to
murder our own and then claim that we are modern and civilized? 
In conclusion, abortion has many ominous consequences and show how the very moral fiber
of our society is disintegrating. It is a moral crime, a crime to the unborn child, a
crime to society as a whole and therefor should be outlawed. 
Bibliography
Bibliography
1. Abortion Opposing Viewpoints, David L. Bender & Bruno Leone, Greenhaven Press 1986.
2. Life in the Balance: Exploring the Abortion Controversy, Robert N. Wennberg, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1985.
3. www.topicsearch.com : Abortion controversy
4. Abortion: Risk Vs. Benefit, Aaron Saarni, Oxford University Press 1990.
5. The Crime of Abortion, Erick Richardson, Prentice-Hall Inc. 1989.
6. Compton's Encyclopedia (CD Rom)
7. www.naral.org Naral homepage
8. potterschool.com/abortion Abortion Perspectives.