Training Day

Abortion has been an issue since 1820. In the beginning the problem was more about protecting doctors who have licenses. "Regular doctors thus had an incentive to ban abortion as part of an effort to drive irregular doctors many of whom were women out of business" (Straggenborg, 1991). The AMA (American Medical Association), which was the group that the regular doctors made, started a campaign that made the people believe that the white population was getting smaller and the population of the immigrants was rising. Abortions were made illegal to insure the stability of the population of American citizens. It seems odd that the only reason that abortions were made illegal at one point was because of money issues and a lust for white supremacy. It seemed to have nothing to do with the rights of a child or a woman. One of the reasons why abortion came into question in the beginning of the 1950s was due to the fact that a lot of doctors and lawyers were seeing many cases of illegal abortions and it was becoming a large social problem. Since there was a lack of competition for legal abortions, doctors found no problem making them legal again -- "They felt that abortions were justified under certain circumstances, and they began to see the laws against abortion as an infringement on their own medical discretion" (Straggenborg, 1991). And so the issue arose again with many pro- choice groups speaking up. Then with court cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, abortion again became legal in the United States.

When looking at a topic like abortion, there are many things that one must take into account. Yet before we look at both sides of the issue, let's look at exactly what the issue is. If we were to state that abortions should be illegal, then we are potentially putting the burden of a child and a pregnancy on a teenager. As well if it were to be illegal, looking at the past history we can almost be sure that women would still go out and have abortions. Though, these abortions would not be safe and would most probably be costly. If abortions were legal then the question at hand is then who has the "personhood" rights, or at least who has more rights. Does the unborn child, if you consider it a child at not even 3 months, have more rights than the woman carrying the baby? Does the father have a decision if this child should be born or not? When looking into this matter one must first extinguish at what point is it a baby with his or her own rights. Does he or she from the moment of conception have rights when he or she is merely in the stage of splitting into different cells? These are all important issues that lead into one big question of whether or not the women should be allowed to have an abortion even at any cost. No matter what stage in the pregnancy . . . no matter what the reason behind her decision . . . is it essentially the women's full choice?

These issues are discussed among many different groups of people. There are a vast number of pro-choice organizations out there that speak on behalf of the women involved in abortions. They speak on behalf of the rights of the women who chooses to carry the child, or who chooses to give it up for adoption, or who raise it themselves. Especially children, it seems to be a fact that, "Each year, one million American teenagers become pregnant, and 78% of these pregnancies are unintended" (prochoice.org). Pro -choice organizations feel that these teenagers should not have to go through pregnancy, or have to go through putting up a child for adoption. There is the other side, the right to life organizations as well. The Catholic Church for one as far as Jodi Stefanick who is in the House of Representatives is concerned; the issue of abortion is "not between me and the bishop. It's not between me and my priest. It's between me and God" (Young 2004). But it's not only the right wing people that are anti-abortion. There is a group called the Libertarians for Life (LFL). It was formed in 1976 and they feel that, "The unalienable right not to be unjustly killed applies equally to all human beings. Day one in a human being's life occurs at fertilization -- that is high school biology" (Gordon 2004). It seems as though the biggest critic, the biggest voice in society, the overall public opinion seems to be very mixed on this topic. Depending on age, and on ethnic background it seems as though the country as a whole does not have a strong stand.

The empirical arguments on the pro-life side of abortion are relatively few in comparison with the pro-choice claims. One argument is that there are many infertile couples in this country. There are over 30 million adult men that are experiencing erectile dysfunction or some other form of impotency. If one-fifteenth of these men decided they wanted a child in the same year and decided to adopt then there would be no need for the average 1.6 million abortions, in fact there would still be four hundred thousand hopeful fathers. This is obviously not the case because the wife has just as much and most likely more say than the father, as well as the fact that a definite percentage of these men could not afford a baby either. This does give an idea of the population from which there could be fathers hoping to adopt, which is the basis of this argument. The next pro-life claim states that 70% of women can afford a baby. Since age and money have the most direct effect on a woman's ability to care for a child this argument is an attempt to take away one of the most commonly voiced pro-choice claim. "The last empirical claim is that abortion poses certain health risks to the mother, such as: hemorrhage, uterine perforation, damage to the external cervix and genital tract infection" (Lee 2001). While all of these are definitely possible the point of the claim is to show the health risks involved and to discourage abortion on the grounds that it is not safe.

There are more empirical claims for pro-choice then there are for pro-life. There are also many rebuttals for the pro-life claims. In regards to the claim that 30 million American men are impotent, a pro-choice response would be that almost all of those 30 million men fall in-between the ages of 40 and 70. It would therefore be somewhat valid to say that most men between 40 and 70 are not trying to start a family. This is an assumption, but one that must be considered. In regards to the basis of the impotency claim, which would be that there are millions of families that want kids and cannot have them, a pro-choice response would be that adoption is not the only way to start a family. Surrogacy is also an option for many couples that only have one impotent partner. "In regards to the claim that 70% of women can afford a baby the pro-choice response would be that of the women that get pregnant, 66%

...