Sunday, September 6, 2009

Murder as an Option?

All that is being considered here is the right of the woman to choose whether or not she wants to have an abortion. You are both failing to consider the other human being involved in the situation -- the child. The child is dependent on the mother and father to make decisions in his or her best interest and in this case the decision to be made is whether or not to allow them a chance at life. First degree murder, defined in the dictionary, is the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, or malice. So the law currently allows certain types of abortion which is ending life in the womb. I want to know why we are allowed to take certain lives and not allowed to take others. It was asked in an earlier post, where is the line and when should abortions be legal. I think a more important question should be why are we drawing the line at some murders are legal and some are not, especially when the people at risk are certainly unable to speak for themselves and are at the mercy of the person who gets to decide.

In response to the comments about "back-alley" abortions and the Roe vs. Wade impact, abortions have increased from approxametly 600,000 per year to over 1.5 million since they have been legalized (Strauss). This shows that when abortions were illegal and women that were using back-alley methods such as sticking themselves with wire hangers or consuming tissue-eating lye to dispose of their babies, the numbers were significantly less. They were still outrageous, but significantly less. The only history we have to base our future opinions on is the facts from before the legalization. Back-alley abortions are horrible, tragic, and grusome - but the human lives of irrational mothers would not likely be saved whether abortion was legal or not. This should not be a topic that is high on the priority list when making decisions about the laws of abortion.

Strauss Lilo T., MA, Gamble Sonya B., MS, Parker Wilda Y., Cook Douglas A., MBIS, Zane
Suzzane B., DVM, Hamdan Saeed MD, PHD. "Abortion Surveilence---United States,
2003." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 24 Nov. 2006. Web. 6 Sept. 2009.

2 comments:

  1. In response to Joey's above comment,I take issue with the fact that you call women who have abortions "irrational mothers." These comments sound like personal attacks and are definitely a rush to judgment because of your own bias views. A lot of women who choose to have an abortion are thinking in completely rational terms, taking into account their financial situations, family situations, suffering of a child with gross deformities/disabilities, as well as their own ability to care for a child. All of these aspects require a considerable amount of rational thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also in response to your comment, "the human lives of irrational mothers would not likely be saved whether abortion was legal or not," you could not be more incorrect in your facts. According to a report by the CDC, "The mortality rate associated with legal abortion in the United States has remained at less than one death per 100,000 abortion procedures" (Klitsch par. 1). In contrast to those facts, the study done by the WHO concluded, "Every year 67,000 women die from complications from abortions, primarily in countries that outlaw the procedure" ("Curb" par. 5). This calculates to a 4 percent mortality rate for illegal abortions. These numbers show the increased risk to women when abortions are done illegally. Clearly these "irrational mothers" can be saved if abortion remains legal in the U.S.

    Works Cited

    "Want to Curb Abortion? Keep It Safe and Legal." Editorial. St. Petersburg Times. 20 Oct. 2007, South Pinellas Edition: 16a. Lexis Nexis. Web. 3 Sept. 2009.

    Klitsch, Michael. "U.S. Abortion Mortality." Family Planning Perspectives 25.1 (Jan. 1993):3-3. EBSCO. Century College Library, White Bear Lake, MN. Web. 13 Sept. 2009.

    ReplyDelete