Gordy327
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 34,136
- Reaction score
- 32,137
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
"How come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelet?" ----George Carlin
Abortion has been a hot topic ever since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling Roe v. Wade (1973). The abortion issue has polarized the American people for nearly 50 years now, with both sides of the issue never seeming to waver or give a little. The pro-choice side generally sees abortion as something that should be an individual choice while the pro-life side generally sees abortion as ending a life. Currently, elective abortions are generally allowed up to the point of fetal viability, approximately 23-24 weeks gestation, which seems like a reasonable limit and compromise between the two sides of the issue. However, after decades of contention, the SCOTUS has reversed Roe and remanded the abortion issue back to the states. This is understandably very concerning for some, especially for those who might need or seek an abortion. Regardless of one's own position on the issue, abortion is something which must remain legal and safe for women. Here are general explanations as to why:
1. Outlawing or significantly restricting abortion does not eliminate abortion or the need for it. All it will do is make abortions unsafe and potentially lead to criminalization of women who obtain "illegal" abortions and those who perform them. Our society has already dealt with such a scenario in the pre-Roe years, when women seeking to end a pregnancy obtained clandestine "back alley" abortions, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions outside of the healthcare system and regulations and provided by some who may not be skilled in the procedure. This led to many women becoming maimed or even dying from the procedure. According to an article in Obstetrics and Gynecology , " w orldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless....The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions. Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths) ." Is that what we really want for this country? Another factor is the potential criminalization of women who either have abortions or are accused of having an abortion if they miscarry. A real world example of this is seen in El Salvador, where abortion has been banned. Many women have been accused and/or convicted for having an abortion after they miscarry. Also, 5,000 illegal abortions are performed there annually, with an 11% mortality rate. A pro-life individual might argue about the "life" of a fetus. But they ignore the life and possible death of the woman seeking an abortion. Again I ask, is that what we really want here?
2. Women have rights and autonomy . The Roe decision established that a woman had the right to choose an abortion. That right has only been affirmed and expanded upon in subsequent rulings regarding abortion. Reversing Roe or placing unreasonable or severe limits on abortion effectively means the state can revoke a right that has been granted. That begs the question, what other rights can the state then revoke? Individual rights are something that is recognized and protected, either explicitly or implicitly, and historically fought for. In a country which places such high value on rights and liberty, the very idea that the state can limit or revoke a right or that someone is forced to surrender their rights to the state should be abhorrent. A woman does not surrender her rights when she becomes pregnant. Neither does an embryo/fetus have rights which cancels the woman's rights. When pro-lifers argue about "life," they fail to acknowledge that no one is required to surrender their rights or themselves for the benefit of another. We do not force people to donate blood or organs to save a "life." So too is a woman not required to remain pregnant to support a "life," even if it's parasitically inside her.
--- Continued
Abortion has been a hot topic ever since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling Roe v. Wade (1973). The abortion issue has polarized the American people for nearly 50 years now, with both sides of the issue never seeming to waver or give a little. The pro-choice side generally sees abortion as something that should be an individual choice while the pro-life side generally sees abortion as ending a life. Currently, elective abortions are generally allowed up to the point of fetal viability, approximately 23-24 weeks gestation, which seems like a reasonable limit and compromise between the two sides of the issue. However, after decades of contention, the SCOTUS has reversed Roe and remanded the abortion issue back to the states. This is understandably very concerning for some, especially for those who might need or seek an abortion. Regardless of one's own position on the issue, abortion is something which must remain legal and safe for women. Here are general explanations as to why:
1. Outlawing or significantly restricting abortion does not eliminate abortion or the need for it. All it will do is make abortions unsafe and potentially lead to criminalization of women who obtain "illegal" abortions and those who perform them. Our society has already dealt with such a scenario in the pre-Roe years, when women seeking to end a pregnancy obtained clandestine "back alley" abortions, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions outside of the healthcare system and regulations and provided by some who may not be skilled in the procedure. This led to many women becoming maimed or even dying from the procedure. According to an article in Obstetrics and Gynecology , " w orldwide, some 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications such as hemorrhage and sepsis, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless....The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions. Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths) ." Is that what we really want for this country? Another factor is the potential criminalization of women who either have abortions or are accused of having an abortion if they miscarry. A real world example of this is seen in El Salvador, where abortion has been banned. Many women have been accused and/or convicted for having an abortion after they miscarry. Also, 5,000 illegal abortions are performed there annually, with an 11% mortality rate. A pro-life individual might argue about the "life" of a fetus. But they ignore the life and possible death of the woman seeking an abortion. Again I ask, is that what we really want here?
2. Women have rights and autonomy . The Roe decision established that a woman had the right to choose an abortion. That right has only been affirmed and expanded upon in subsequent rulings regarding abortion. Reversing Roe or placing unreasonable or severe limits on abortion effectively means the state can revoke a right that has been granted. That begs the question, what other rights can the state then revoke? Individual rights are something that is recognized and protected, either explicitly or implicitly, and historically fought for. In a country which places such high value on rights and liberty, the very idea that the state can limit or revoke a right or that someone is forced to surrender their rights to the state should be abhorrent. A woman does not surrender her rights when she becomes pregnant. Neither does an embryo/fetus have rights which cancels the woman's rights. When pro-lifers argue about "life," they fail to acknowledge that no one is required to surrender their rights or themselves for the benefit of another. We do not force people to donate blood or organs to save a "life." So too is a woman not required to remain pregnant to support a "life," even if it's parasitically inside her.
--- Continued
