Abortion - the Coexistence of Opposite and Conflicting Feelings

Abortion - the Coexistence of Opposite and Conflicting Feelings

The coexistence of opposite and conflicting feelings about abortion is

centuries old. Disagreements between public policy, morality and

individual behavior on this issue existed even at the time of Plato and

Aristotle. In the past few decades abortion issue has been brought into

sharper focus and has been vigorously debated. A number of factors are

responsible for this but perhaps the major one has been that associated

with the sexual revolution which accentuates freedom in all matters sexual

and in spite of or even because of the tremendous and indiscriminate

increase in the distribution of contraceptives. Judges have ruled,

politicians have legislated, but the controversy on this issue is still

shaking our society. Since the late 1960's abortion has been shifting from

a predominantly illegitimate status toward a more legitimate one. Several

cases have been fought for the right to choose. Many of these have been

hard cases with very personal feelings, but the perseverance showed through

and gives us the rights we have today. In 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut

upheld the right the right to privacy and ended the ban on birth control.

Eight years later, the Supreme Court ruled the right to privacy included

abortions. In Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court stated that it is the women's

right to have an abortion if she so chooses. In Jan 1988 the abortion

section of the Criminal Code of Canada was struck down in Morgentaler

decision. (Gentles, 13). Most arguments against granting women the right to

abortion are based on religious and moral prohibitions, defending the

sanctity of human life. Opponents of abortion rely on the premise that the

fetus is a human being, a person from the moment of conception. Anti-

abortionist proclaim that they are pro-life. However, they spend so much

time establishing that the fetus is a person and therefore has a right to

live that they forget about mothers rights or simply ignore her existence.

The word "murder" is often used by pro-lifers to describe abortion.

Murder means deliberate and unjustified killing of another person

containing intent. How can anybody see an evil intent in a woman's decision

to interrupt pregnancy if it is a result of rape or incest? A woman cannot

bear the thought of having a child that would be a constant reminder of

what had happened on such and such a day, such and such number of years ago.

She doesn't want to kill a baby, she wants to interrupt the growth of an

embryo so that it will not become a baby. She interrupts potential life.

But potential life is just that, potential.

It is interesting to note that these same people, who place so much

emphasis on protecting the fetus seem to care so little about what happens

to children after they are born. The vast majority oppose government

welfare programs to help support needy and dependent children. These

people are also in favor of the death penalty and see the killing that goes

on during war as justified and noble.

My personal belief is that each woman should have a right to decide

whether she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. For reason's of

women's right to self-determination, protection of their health, adequate

care of children which are born and in order to prevent