Sally Fitzgibbons Foundation

Beginning the Academic Essay

he pro-life movement is focused around opposition to abortion, and support for the legal banning of elective abortion. Those involved in the movement generally maintain that human fetuses and embryos are people and therefore have a right to life. Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong. In some cases, this beliefs extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth. Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. Most pro-life supporters feel that the government should not fund abortions. Pro-life supporters also feel that statistics shows that the emotional fallout after abortion can be just as devastating as postpartum depression. For instance, last year the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a study showing that “women who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery.” They also believe that by the time most abortions are preformed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves and they use this argument in response to the opposing sides stand that a fetus is not yet a person.
The national right to life committee was founded in 1973 in response to a united states supreme court decision released on January 22nd of that year, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. The national right to life committee has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal cons clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to bills which prohibit the use of federal funds to promote abortions in the united states and overseas. The ultimate goal of the national right to life committee is to restore legal protection to human life. The primary interest of this organization but not limited to is the abortion controversy. The national right to life organization gives a rebuttal on many of the arguments used by pro-choice supporters. In response to its a woman’s body therefore their choice, they believe every mother is face with profound decisions to make for themselves and their child, but believe these decisions can never include the choice to kill their child. They believe mothers facing difficult need compassion and accurate information on what other options that are available to them other than abortion in the USA. In response to what will be done with all the unwanted babies argument they state poverty in our world will not end by killing babies. That a mother who is deemed to be to poor or uneducated or possibly abusive, will still be so after the abortion is completed. Also in answer to the compelling argument of reintroduction to back alley abortions if abortion is made illegal. They argue that numbers often used by pro-choice advocates are often fabrications. They argue that the true reason the deaths have decreased from abortion isn’t legalization, it was the widespread introduction of antibiotics into medicine that saved the lives of women who would have otherwise died of blotched abortions. They believe that the only thing legalizing abortion has accomplished was to give abortionists the right to stop using the back alley. In response to abortion being the answer for an unwanted pregnancy of a rape or incest, they believe that by having a woman choose abortion is pitting mother against child, and that in these cases the child ends of being the second victim in a already unthinkable crime. Meanwhile, mothers who found support to carry their child to term, whether they opted for adoption or to raise the child themselves felt that they had turn something horrible into something good. They believe the key is support for both victims, mother and child.
As of 2007 there are currently 5 countries where abortion is illegal under any circumstance. Nineteen countries are allow abortions in extreme circumstances such as issues where the mothers life is in danger if the pregnancy continues or where the pregnancy was the result of rape or cases where the unborn child ha medical issues such a birth defects. Thirty-four countries have legalized abortion for any reason such a social reasons and on demand where no reason needs to be given.
After researching this issue and looking at it from both sides of the fence it is hard to place my feet firmly on either side. So I guess I boarder both. I believe in the right of a woman’s choice. I believe a woman should be in full control and say over her own body. On the same token I could never see abortion as a means for myself in any situation. I know of woman that do not practice any type of birth control and have had several abortions. Sometimes two and three in 1 year. To me this is like using abortion itself as a form of birth control. Which I find not only morally wrong but inexcusable. We live in a time were birth control is not only effective but readily available to any one that needs them. With not just one option available. When it comes to this type of abuse of abortion I can sympathize with the pro-life side of the issue. What is certain is that this can never be a black and white issue that both sides have compelling arguments. I believe that if both sides would look at the issue from an unbiased point of view that laws could be put into place that would protect both, the rights of a woman’s choice, and the rights of the unborn child.

Post Author: admin