On January 22, 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court, in two separate decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v.
Bolton, declared that Congress and the states had to adopt apolicy on abortion. Since then, abortion has been one of the most controversialissues in our country today. Every time the subject of abortion is raised, thesame question always comes up: should people have the right to terminate anunborn child? The answer is no. No person should have the right to terminate anunborn child which has not yet had the chance to live, no matter what the reasonis. Abortion is the termination of an alive, unborn child, which can experiencepain through the process of an abortion. There is no need to have an abortionwhen these children could be put up for adoption instead of being?aborted.
? Abortion is the termination of alive, unborn children. How can a person decide just when an unborn fetus becomes a person withconstitutional rights. Many people disagree when a fetus becomes an actualperson, but the truth is that a fetus becomes a person at the time ofconception. An article entitled ?Pro-lofe and pro-choice? Yes?says that, ?From the moment of conception, the fetus is endowed with allthe genetic information that will enable its development into a full humanperson? (Church 108). Technology has advanced very much in the pasttwenty years and now with the aid of medical technology and the science offetology, doctors can prove that a fetus is an actual person as early asthirteen weeks of growth (Meyer 62-64). These facts only help to prove that afetus is an actual person, who deserves the chance to be born.
Contrary tobelief, a fetus can actually feel pain. The observation of abortions onultrasound have been very disturbing. So disturbing, that many abortion doctorswho have seen the procedure, refuse to participate in abortions again (Meyer62-64). An article entitled ?Fetal positions: Making Abortionrare? reports that, ?Bernard Nathanson, a former director of theNational Abortion Rights Action League, who performed thousands of abortions,repudiated the practice in the early 1980’s after observing the apparent agonyof a fetus subjected to a suction-tip abortion? (Meyer 62-64). Modernneurology supports the claim that the fetus can experience pain, not justreflex. Reflexive reactions stimulate only the spinal column, but the morecomplex reactions that stimulate pain occur in the tiny portion of the braincalled the thalamus.
Neurologists can detect the thalamus and thecentral-nervous-system functions in the human fetus as early as the eighth weekof growth (Meyer 62-64). So, how can people justify abortion by saying that afetus is not a person until the time of birth? There are currently one millionfive hundred thousand parents who are waiting to adopt a child. These parentscould give unwanted children love and a place in which to grow up. Every year,nearly one million six hundred thousand unborn children are aborted. Accordingto the article ?Fetal positions: Making abortin rare?,?Women wanting to rid themselves of viable infants can generally do so aseasily by delivering them and then turning them over to adoptive parents as byaborting them? (Meyer 62-64). These unwanted children would be given tosomeone who would care for them as their own, and the mothers of these unbornchildren would not have to worry about the responsibility of raising them.
Everyone would come out ahead, especially the unborn child. Abortionists claimthat unborn children are not human people. The article ?Pro-life andpro-choice? Yes? claims that, ?A potential human person is not yetan actual human person. Thus abortion, if repellent, is not exactlymurder? (Church 108).
But on what possible justification can there be forthe termination of a seven month old unborn child, when heroic medical measuresare often taken to save an even younger child?s life at a mother?swish (Meyer 62-64). There is no way to say that an unborn fetus is not a humanperson when there are plenty of facts to claim that it is. Once a child isconceived, it is on its way to becoming a human person. There is no way to stopthe process of growth from happening, unless the fetus is aborted. Abortionistsalso claim that it is the right of a woman to be able to choose if she wants tohave an abortion.
Jessica Feierman, whose mother is an abortion doctor, says,?I?m pro-choice because I believe that as women, we must be theones to make decisions about our bodies and we should have the right to be safewith whatever choices we make? (82). In the Roe v. Wade decision, theSupreme Court declared that the rights of the fetus never eclipsed those of themother (Meyer 62-64). But what of the rights of the unborn child? An unbornchild is incapable of protecting itself and needs someone to protect it fromharm.
This someone should be it?s mother, but sadly, it is usually themother that the unborn child needs protection from. There needs to be some sortof law which protects these unborn children from needless death. There have beena few court cases in which unborn children have been protected. In 1981, thestate of Georgia obtained the right to make a mother have a caesarean section,against her will, to save her unborn child?s life. More of these types ofcases should be enforced to save the needless deaths of unborn children. Abortion is a subject throughout the world that desperately needs to beaddressed.
The countless abolishing of unborn children needs to end. If peoplewould just look at all of the facts on abortion and realize that it issenseless, then maybe some of these potential human lives could be saved. Everyone deserves the right to be born, regardless of sex, color, or physicalhandicaps. These unborn children deserve the right to grow up and become someonein this world, not be terminated even before they get the chance to begin life.
BibliographyChurch, George J. ?Pro-life and pro-choice? Yes. ? Time 6 March1995: 108. Feierman, Jessica. ?Stand by your mom.
‘seventeenDecember 1994: 82. Larson, Edward J. ?Personhood: current legalviews. ‘second Opinion July 1990: 40. Meyer, Stephen C. ?Fetalpositions: Making abortion rare.? National Review 20 March 1995: 62-64.Legal Issues
