Speech In Response to patience's “Abortion”

Speech In Response to “Abortion”

Abortion is a general term. It would be simply vacuous for one to suggest that pro-choice individuals see abortion in the same way that pro-life supporters do. While pro-choice supporters see pro-life supporters as anti-choice, pro-lifers see pro-choice advocates as anti-life.
Though it would be balanced for me to say that neither side is correct, it would not be fair or just. Life, according to pro-choice supporters, begins at birth; to a pro-life supporter, life begins at conception, when the fetus is not even a mass of cells. Pro-choice fans are not anti-life, as they have a dissimilar view on the word “life” than pro-life fans; on the other hand, pro-life fans are, in fact, anti-choice, as both sides share the same view about choice.
When talking about choice, it is most important to remember that the decision-holder in an abortion case is the mother, and only the mother. They are the ones who lug and feed and protect the fetus for nine sustained months; they are the ones who have to undergo the pain during childbirth. If the mother does not want to bear such consequence, the decision should be based solely on her preference. It is not right that a priest, a friend or a relative force such weighty penalties on a human.
Furthermore, implementing a ban on abortion is an unfeasible task. What would be the punishment for a woman who has terminated her fetus? And if the punishment was even mildly severe, wouldn’t the woman seek alternate, illegal and immensely dangerous ways to terminate the fetus? In implementing the ban, the government would have to limit not only the freedom of choice, but also of a fair punishment.
There are two pro-life arguments that, in simple theory, seem sensible, though when executed they collapse. One is the idea that life should be consecrated, unconditional and unchallengeable, and if the mother cannot raise the child, an adoption agency or adoptive family should be able to. However, if abortion were illegal, agencies would be overrun and teeming with abandoned infants—the world would be teeming with infants! Adoption services are not the proper technique to channel all or even some unwanted babies into the world.
One more widely supported pro-life argument is to compare abortion with murder. Murder is restricted, and if one murders another they should be punished after a fair trial. The argument says that even though some murder still exists during the implementation of murder laws, the murder laws still subsist in order to control the murder. Abortion, they argue, is the same thing: a woman might have an illegal abortion, but that does not indicate that abortion could not still be restricted. Nevertheless, this argument doesn’t hold up because illegal abortions cannot be exposed as easily as murder; if they could be exposed, it will indefinitely infringe upon the woman’s rights to the Fourth Amendment of the USA’s Bill of Rights.
The fetus should only be regarded as a child once the neurons in its brains are connected, which is scientifically proven to be around the sixth month of pregnancy. Furthermore, a pro-life agenda would only reduce women’s civil rights when compared with men.
So if you’re thinking of having an abortion, remember this: you have an important choice to make. Do not let anybody force their morals upon you. Do not let anybody take control of your body. Do not let anybody tell you that you’re not free.

Perhaps it is spelt different in the US, but in England 'fetus' (as you spelt it) is spelt 'foetus'. Sorry, just thought I would mention that, but, as I said, it could be spelt differently in the US.

Overall this was an insightful essay with some interesting points and I'm glad you're so righteous with your opinions. Keep up the good work!

Luvzi12 wrote:Perhaps it is spelt different in the US, but in England 'fetus' (as you spelt it) is spelt 'foetus'. Sorry, just thought I would mention that, but, as I said, it could be spelt differently in the US.

Overall this was an insightful essay with some interesting points and I'm glad you're so righteous with your opinions. Keep up the good work!

Really? Foetus? Freaky.

I enjoyed this. It has depth and insight, and looks beyond the issue of ethics into the much more complex and relevant (and frequently neglected) area of social and legal pragmatism.

Gadi. wrote:Speech In Response to “Abortion”The fetus should only be regarded as a child once the neurons in its brains are connected, which is scientifically proven to be around the sixth month of pregnancy. Furthermore, a pro-life agenda would only reduce women’s civil rights when compared with men.

The term "scientifically proven" is thrown around too much these days to seem the least bit credible to any intellectual. You should back this with a highly reliable source, and cite it. Also, I think you should address the misconception that a fetus is the potential for a life and thereby equivalent to a life (thereby equating abortion with murder), because it is indeed a pervasive misconception that few people actually think about.

When talking about choice, it is most important to remember that the decision-holder in an abortion case is the mother, and only the mother. They are the ones who lug and feed and protect the fetus for nine sustained months; they are the ones who have to undergo the pain during childbirth. If the mother does not want to bear such consequence, the decision should be based solely on her preference. It is not right that a priest, a friend or a relative force such weighty penalties on a human.
Furthermore, implementing a ban on abortion is an unfeasible task.

Empathy for the pregnant mothers is easily reversed by the fact that most of such mothers neglected to use contraceptives or chose to have the child in the first place. No pity will be felt for pregnant teenagers who merely decided "to hell with condoms."

Ooh, I love differences of opinion voiced in whole essays or other entities of literature. The end result is so much more thought provoking (and thought out) than most other mediums! ^_^

This is a solid beginning, Gadi. You seem to know what you're talking about, not in the way that you're an expert on the topic, but that you have a good enough understanding of it to know where you stand and why you stand there. That can always be seen as one of the most important aspects to any essay.

That said, it's hard to tell what you're talking about. There isn't really a topic introduced at the beginning, other than that it's stated as a reply. I think the first sentence, "Abortion is a general term," comes closest to being your statement for the whole essay, but this needs to be clearer. You're not really arguing for or against abortion, rather talking about each stance as it relates to the mother herself. A statement such as "you have an important choice to make" which you stated at the end, might be better placed, albeit, rephrased, at the beginning so that the audience knows what we're reading about, otherwise it's sort of undirectional (yes, I'm making up words ).

This essay starts off well, being more or less impersonal and factual, but it ends by addressing a person directly. Ex: "So if you're thinking of having an abortion...". This greatly underscores your 'credibility' (as much credibility as a non-expert can have, anyway) as an essayist on this subject. This last paragraph alone has taken the whole essay from being more or less a statement of fact to arguing passionately to a possible mother. These are two different tones that don't mesh well together, and don't belong together, even. It would be much stronger to use this same sentiment from the last paragraph, but rephrase it so that it's not addressed to anyone specifically (as specifically as an unknown "you" can be, anyway), but rather addresses all people. Ex: "If a prospective mother is thinking of having an abortion, she should remember that she has an important choice to make." Otherwise, the message sort of gets minced in the process.

Happy writing!

In a world of half baked manifestos and sound bite revolution, its wonderful to read an even handed and well grounded essay about a issue that should have little public importance. When an essay like yours is read one realizes how ridiculous some pro-life arguments are, but how they are hard to stop when all you do his have chants and bumper stickers to argue your opinion on the freeway.

If that was a little muddled, my apologies. And best of luck