Abortion has always been one of the most disputable social issues. It is the subject of heated discussion in political circles. It is a constant concern to medical workers. It is a moral, cultural, and religious issue. Neither legalization of abortions nor their ban could put an end to the disputes. There will always be those who are for and those who are unconditionally against abortion.
There was a time in the history of the USA when abortions were banned. That period started at the turn of the 20ties century and lasted till 1973 ("Government Should Protect Women's Right to Abortion"). But even though it was prohibited, women still found ways to have abortions. Unfortunately, the illegal and often unprofessional help that they found led to different complications and even death. All this was put an end to in 1973 by Roe v. Wade case when the Supreme Court decision made abortions legal. As a result, the number of deaths because of the procedure has greatly declined. Statistics say that in the period from 1973 till 1997 the number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortions decreased from 4.1 to 0.6 ("Abortion Is Safe").
However, recently the disputes over the problem have become rather intense again. Anti-choice activists emphasize moral issues supporting them with medical factors concerning possible negative effect of an abortion on women’s health. Among the problems they raise for consideration and further ban are such moral questions as live-birth abortion and partial-birth abortion ("Late-Term Abortions Should Be Banned"). They do not think these issues to be only “private family matters”, as President Obama states it; they are sure such things cannot be justified and should, therefore, become illegal.
Anti-choice activists speak also about medical and psychological problems an abortion may entail for women. They list such problems as depression, suicidal thought, guilt and/or shame, sexual dysfunction, drug and/or alcohol abuse, anorexia/bulimia (Thrupkaew). All this is often referred to as post-abortion syndrome (PAS). It is said that even though abortions are considered to have become safer from the medical point of view, their psychological consequences have not disappeared. To crown it all, the anti-choice forces speak about certain side effects of abortion, such as pregnancy complications and breast cancer development in future ("Abortion Is Safe").
These protests of anti-choice forces have resulted in a number of restrictions limiting women’s right for legal abortion. Thus, in 1997 the Congress forbade privately paid abortions at overseas military hospitals, forbade abortions for women in prison, and banned abortions for Medicaid recipients with the exception when their life is in danger as well as in case of rape or incest ("Government Should Protect Women's Right to Abortion"). Later there have been other restrictions introduced; they include obligotory pre-abortion consultation, mandated performance of a non-medically indicated ultrasound before an abortion, restriction of abortion coverage in private health insurance plans, burdensome requirements on abortion facilities that are not related to patient safety, etc. (Gold & Nash). These obstacles which women willing to have an abortion must overcome often delay the procedure. As a result, the abortion cannot be performed at the early stages of pregnancy which may lead to possible complications in future. Earlier abortions are associated with fewer mortality and morbidity risks ("Abortion Is Safe"). Sometimes the restrictions can even prevent a woman from having an abortion and deprive her of her freedom of making a choice.
Furthermore, all this fuss about the illegality of abortions and their inhumanity has resulted in the decrease in the number of specialist able to perform an abortion properly. There is less and less training of it in medical teaching institutions; some institutions do not train specialists of this kind at all. The average age of doctors able to perform an abortion has increased recently. Besides, there are fewer and fewer doctors willing to get involved in an abortion case.
So, it is obvious that all these restrictions, protests, and lack of professional and experienced specialists have made the procedure for women undergoing an abortion more complicated both psychologically and physically. However, there are no substantial grounds to all these limitations. Researchers say that most arguments anti-choice activists use are merely a myth. As for post-abortion syndrome, experts say that although some women may feel depressed, but the percentage of women in depression after a natural child birth is far higher. For instance, in 2000 a study reported that 72 % of women who had undergone the procedure admitted more benefits that harm ("Abortion Is Safe").
The myths about pregnancy complications and possible breast cancer are also disproved. The results of the research conducted showed no connection between pregnancy complications and abortion that might have preceded it, or between breast cancer and abortions women might have had in the past.
Still, even if all the myths created by anti-choice activists were disproved, the problem would remain. Do women have a right to decide if their child can live or not if it has already been conceived? Isn’t it similar to a murder even at the earliest stages of pregnancy? When procedures of live-birth abortions and partial-birth abortion are described, people are horrified at the cruelty of the acts. The ill-famous Doctor Gosnel who to be sure the delivered fetuses were dead stuck scissors into their spines can be a symbol of atrocities abortions are often associated with. And we cannot deny that even though the number is not great, there are women who may suffer the post-abortion syndrome and cannot get rid of the idea that they have killed a human being and their own child.
But there is another side of the coin. And when we think rationally we see the advantages women gain if they have the choice: they do not have to change their life turning everything upside down due a child birth; they do not have to put an end to their career development when it is at its peak; they do not have to put up with a partner they do not love just because he happened to be their child’s father, etc. Moreover, if the child is not wanted or born at hard times, he/she has little chances to have a happy childhood among loving and caring parents. The parents are very likely to associate the child with all additional problems he/she caused and the prospects he/she ruined.
The other important and obvious thing is that if a woman has already made a decision not to give birth to a child, she will find a way how to stop the pregnancy. And it would be better if she had a chance to do it legally. It would be safer for her health; it could guarantee her no future pregnancy complications; and it could even save her life. The history gives the necessary proofs to it. In 1966, in Romania both contraceptives and abortions were banned. As a result, the country had the highest maternal mortality rate in Europe in the 1980ties. And when Romania legalized abortions the maternal mortality rate decreased nearly half of the previous level ("Abortion Is Safe"). This example shows that women around the world do make their choice whether it is legal or not. So, the obligation of the government is to make this decision for citizens of the country easier and safer to their health. A study conducted in 1999 confirmed that the abortion-related deaths are non-frequent in those countries where abortions are legalized and therefore can be done at the early stages of pregnancy by skilled doctors ("Abortion Is Safe").
Of course, the moral issues still remain, but anti-choice activists can act in some other way – they can advocate the right for life, they can show videos or pictures depicting the cruelty of abortion, they can promote the family values and so on. In such a way they can dissuade those who can be dissuaded but they will not harm those who are firm in their decision not to have a child, at least at that period of their life.
I completely agree with those who believe that children are our future and they are the ones who make us the happiest people on earth. But I also believe that every woman must have a right to choose what is good, right, or preferable for her. This is what the freedom of choice is. Other people should not tell a woman what to do with her own body and her own life. They can give advice, of course, but they cannot rule her life.
Works Cited
"Abortion Is Safe." Opposing Viewpoints: Abortion. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
Gold, Rachel Benson, and Nash, Elizabeth. "Abortion Rights Are Threatened." At Issue: Are Abortion Rights Threatened?. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
"Government Should Protect Women's Right to Abortion." Opposing Viewpoints: Culture Wars. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
"Late-Term Abortions Should Be Banned." Are Abortion Rights Threatened? Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Ho Hum Horror." National Review 63.3 (21 Feb. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Thrupkaew, Noy. "Post-Abortion Emotional Problems Do Not Harm Women." Opposing Viewpoints: Abortion. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Houston Community College. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.
