Abortion Argumentative Essay

Custom Student Mr. Teacher ENG 1001-04 24 April 2016

Abortion Argumentative

“Jane Doe, you have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of your embryo.” Is this what we want to hear? According to the recent gallup poll, 44% of us apparently do. Does it matter that she is a happily married forty three year old employed mother of three who was impregnated by a man who raped her at gun point? The answer to this question continues to be a controversial debate long after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 landmark decision on Roe vs.

Wade declaring abortion a “fundamental right” in 1973. In the instance of rape based pregnancies, the question of whether abortion is acceptable is highly debated and differs amidst pro-life and pro-choice individuals.

While the majority of pregnancies are the result of consensual sex, woman periodically become impregnated as a result of rape. Should a woman who involuntary engaged in sex be forced to carry a child to term as a result? Pro-life advocates say absolutely! They believe that a woman must never terminate her pregnancy, no matter what the circumstance. Whereas pro-choice individuals support a woman’s choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, especially when a child is conceived against her will.

The sanctity of life can compel some people to feel justified in coercing a woman to produce a living constant reminder of an act unfair to both mother and child. According to pro-life supporters aborting a child conceived through rape extends the pattern of violence and victim-hood. Although these people believe rape is a horrific act of violence, they perceive abortion as an equal act of violence that the mother should be morally and legally punished for as well.

Because they feel life begins at conception, they insist terminating a pregnancy is murdering a living human being. Pro-life advocates argue that these innocent human beings have the fundamental right to life that must be protected. A common example of this perception is the fact that no one would suggest that a mother kill her three year old child because it’s not big enough to have rights yet; Therefor, an infant in the womb should not be deprived of it’s right to be born simply because it’s too small.

On the other hand, pro-choice supporters believe it’s a woman’s choice to keep or abort her pregnancy when conception results from being raped. These supporters believe an abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not a human being since personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

Pro-choice advocates argue that rape is one of the most traumatic events a woman can experience and that in these occurrences aborting the pregnancy is her fundamental right to choose not to be a mother. This could be a young girl who has no concept of life as she has yet to experience it or live it or an older woman whose health may be at risk. The additional torment of being pregnant with the product of the violation against her can be physically and emotionally traumatizing. According to pro-choice believers , carrying an unwanted pregnancy is something no one should be forced to bare.

According to Pro-life advocates, a rape victim should put her baby up for adoption if she does want it. They believe this is an adequate resolution because childbirth is conceived to be safer than having an abortion and preserves life. A pro-life individual believes the only reasons this might not be a solution are the risks and pains of childbirth and perhaps the difficulty of separating from the child.

To them, the risks and pains of childbirth, no matter the reason for conception, are worth maintaining the life of a fetus. Secondly, they believe there is no difference in separating from an unborn child through abortion as compared to giving birth to a child and giving it up for adoption. Pro-life individuals argue that abortion is not a healing or compassionate procedure for the mother or her child, and will not erase the rape.

While a fetus is a potential human life, it does not need to be afforded the same rights as the woman who it resides in. The pro-choice community believes in a woman’s right to decide whether having the baby fits in with her life circumstances and health, being that she didn’t ask to be raped and impregnated. Modern abortion procedures are believed to be safer than childbirth and result in less than one death in 100,000. Whereas, childbirth is responsible for 13 deaths in 100,000.

“Back-alley” abortions performed in countries where abortion is not legal caused a yearly estimated amount of 68,000 maternal deaths according to the World Health Organization. Pro-choice advocates believe compassion is giving woman the reproductive choice and the right to legal, professionally-performed abortions.

The fact of the matter is that abortion is legal in the United States of America no matter what the circumstance is. The question is, if abortion became illegal, would it be justifiable in the instances of rape? Pro-life supporters argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government under every circumstance.

By way of contrast, pro-choice supporters argue that where human life cannot be proven in pregnancy prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman’s right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy no matter what the circumstance. Honestly, can’t a person, as well as, the government take a pro-life and pro-choice position on this uncommon horrible predicament? Meaning, although one wouldn’t seek an abortion or advocate for one, An individual would not want to take that right away from someone else, or criminalize the procedure in the event a woman was raped and impregnated against her will. Are there not exceptions for every rule?

Annie Yondolino
Professor Cruz
Freshman English
9 March 2013
Reproductive Justice
“Jane Doe, you have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of your embryo.” Is this what we want to hear? According to the recent gallup poll, 44% of us apparently do. Does it matter that she is a happily married forty three year old employed mother of three who was impregnated by a man who raped her at gun point? The answer to this question continues to be a controversial debate long after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 landmark decision on Roe vs. Wade declaring abortion a “fundamental right” in 1973. In the instance of rape based pregnancies, the question of whether abortion
is acceptable is highly debated and differs amidst pro-life and pro-choice individuals.

While the majority of pregnancies are the result of consensual sex, woman periodically become impregnated as a result of rape. Should a woman who involuntary engaged in sex be forced to carry a child to term as a result? Pro-life advocates say absolutely! They believe that a woman must never terminate her pregnancy, no matter what the circumstance. Whereas pro-choice individuals support a woman’s choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, especially when a child is conceived against her will.

The sanctity of life can compel some people to feel justified in coercing a woman to produce a living constant reminder of an act unfair to both mother and child. According to pro-life supporters aborting a child conceived through rape extends the pattern of violence and victim-hood. Although these people believe rape is a horrific act of violence, they perceive abortion as an equal act of violence that the mother should be morally and legally punished for as well. Because they feel life begins at conception, they insist terminating a pregnancy is murdering a living human being. Pro-life advocates argue that these innocent human beings have the fundamental right to life that must be protected.

A common example of this perception is the fact that no one would suggest that a mother kill her three year old child because it’s not big enough to have rights yet; Therefor, an infant in the womb should not be deprived of it’s right to be born simply because it’s too small. On the other hand, pro-choice supporters believe it’s a woman’s choice to keep or abort her pregnancy when conception results from being raped. These supporters believe an abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not a human being since personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

Pro-choice advocates argue that rape is one of the most traumatic events a woman can experience and that in these occurrences aborting the pregnancy is her fundamental right to choose not to be a mother. This could be a young girl who has no concept of life as she has yet to experience it or live it or an older woman whose health may be at risk. The additional torment of being pregnant with the product of the violation against her can be physically and emotionally traumatizing. According to pro-choice believers , carrying an unwanted pregnancy is something no one should be forced to bare.

According to Pro-life advocates, a rape victim should put her baby up for adoption if she does want it. They believe this is an adequate resolution because childbirth is conceived to be safer than having an abortion and preserves life. A pro-life individual believes the only reasons this might not be a solution are the risks and pains of childbirth and perhaps the difficulty of separating from the child.

To them, the risks and pains of childbirth, no matter the reason for conception, are worth maintaining the life of a fetus. Secondly, they believe there is no difference in separating from an unborn child through abortion as compared to giving birth to a child and giving it up for adoption. Pro-life individuals argue that abortion is not a healing or compassionate procedure for the mother or her child, and will not erase the rape.

While a fetus is a potential human life, it does not need to be afforded the same rights as the woman who it resides in. The pro-choice community believes in a woman’s right to decide whether having the baby fits in with her life circumstances and health, being that she didn’t ask to be raped and impregnated. Modern abortion procedures are believed to be safer than childbirth and result in less than one death in 100,000. Whereas, childbirth is responsible for 13 deaths in 100,000.

“Back-alley” abortions performed in countries where abortion is not legal caused a yearly estimated amount of 68,000 maternal deaths according to the World Health Organization. Pro-choice advocates believe compassion is giving woman the reproductive choice and the right to legal, professionally-performed abortions.

The fact of the matter is that abortion is legal in the United States of America no matter what the circumstance is. The question is, if abortion became illegal, would it be justifiable in the instances of rape? Pro-life supporters argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government under every circumstance. By way of contrast, pro-choice supporters argue that where human life cannot be proven in pregnancy prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman’s right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy no matter what the circumstance.

Honestly, can’t a person, as well as, the government take a pro-life and pro-choice position on this uncommon horrible predicament? Meaning, although one wouldn’t seek an abortion or advocate for one, An individual would not want to take that right away from someone else, or criminalize the procedure in the event a woman was raped and impregnated against her will. Are there not exceptions for every rule?

Free Abortion Argumentative Essay Sample

A+

  • Subject:

  • University/College: University of Chicago

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Date: 24 April 2016

  • Words:

  • Pages:

We will write a custom essay sample on Abortion Argumentative

for only $16.38 $12.9/page

your testimonials