A very controversial topic in the news for the last fifty-ish years is the topic of abortion. The views of pro-life versus pro-choice. While a great deal of controversy surrounds this topic, I am going to debunk a few myths and speak from a scientific standpoint on why I personally am pro-choice, while also looking at both sides of common accusations thrown during this argument.
A zygote, an egg that has been fertilized by sperm, is what is referred to as the fetus, although the term fetus is not actually appropriate until the mother is in her eighth week in her pregnancy, although in the sixth week of pregnancy, eyes, eyelids, nose, mouth, and tongue are forming. According to Planned Parenthood, 92% of abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks.
Those with pro-life standpoints are generally against abortions altogether. They feel the bundle of cells developing is human life and should be treated as if they were human being already walking this earth. They feel abortion is murder no matter the circumstances.
Those with pro-choice views believe it is a woman's decision, as it is her body. They believe and stand by the Roe v. Wade decision in January of 1973, that a woman has complete and total autonomy of her body, and may receive an abortion "free of interference from the state."
Many, not all, of those with pro-choice views, believe that life does not begin at conception and that a bundle of cells is not yet human life. We believe that the ability is our fundamental right to the Supreme Court decision in 1973.
As I stated earlier, the vast majority of abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy, while it has been stated by experts from both Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that fetuses do not endure pain until a minimum of 20 weeks gestation, but a mean of 29-30 weeks.
If 92% of abortions are performed in the first 13 weeks, then the fetus is incapable of feeling any pain of any kind.
Religion is huge debating factor that is almost always brought into the argument by those with pro-life views. The common argument is that abortion is killing and God forbids killing. There are not many that can combat this argument because those who are religious, are stuck in their beliefs and no one, no matter the scientific proof, will change their beliefs, so if this comes up, you might as well stop because you will not get any further with this argument.
Science has moved mountains in their improvements and have developed the ability to detect abnormalities that can be detrimental to human life. These abnormalities include life-altering chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, spinal bifida, limb-body wall complex or even anencephaly. Abortions give women the option to not bring these fetuses to term.
Some fetuses such as anencephaly children, if actually born will die within a matter of hours to a matter of days, no possible chance of life. Other abnormalities, less severe may not be able to be cared for by the parents and they do not want to bring that child into the world.
Many argue about the moment of conception and when life actually begins. While we will more than likely never settle on this issue, mostly due to the argument of religion I mentioned above. However, viability is the general medical definition of life is different from the definition of non-life which is determined by growth and metabolism.
Viability is the ability to survive outside of the womb without the mother, although, at this age, there is still an extensive need for medical care. Viability defines the fetus actually becoming life at a gestation of approximately 26 weeks.
As someone who is currently in college studying biomedical science, to eventually go to medical school and would like to do forensic pathology, which includes autopsies, I have a massive issue with the pro-life argument about bodily autonomy. Due to bodily autonomy, for someone to be an organ donor, aside from the need to be generally healthy when deceased, we cannot legally remove a single organ without the consent of the deceased unless the next of kin agrees.
For someone who holds a pro-life stance to deny a woman the right to rid a bundle of cells of her body, and to force her to go through with a pregnancy that has the potential to change her life against her will, is sickening.
If a woman cannot choose to rid her body of a pregnancy, we are giving more bodily autonomy to corpse than to a still very much alive human being. We cannot take a corpse's organs without written consent, so why do we deny a woman bodily autonomy?
To those who scream "choose adoption, don't abort", but then refuse to adopt or support adoption in any sorts, you're not pro-life, you're just anti-abortion.
My closing argument for this topic will be the following: In 1914, in the US when drugs such as opiates and cocaine became illegal by the Harrison act passed by Congress and four years later with the Prohibition Act, the country officially became a "dry nation."
What did this do? It fuelled the under ground factories of such drugs and of alcohol. It was still available, it was much more dangerous due to there being no regulations on how it was produced.
Does anyone see a resemblance with making abortion illegal? It will not end abortions, it will end safe abortions and will only cause more harm to those who are fully alive human beings.
If anyone has read my previous articles over gun control, it is obvious I am pro-gun, but I would never consider shoving a gun in the hands of someone who does not want one, or is afraid of one. It's your choice to possess a gun. If you are against abortion, don't get an abortion, but please don't take away my right to one, and give a corpse more autonomy than me, a living human.
For more facts and to read the different stances on this issue, visit https://abortion.procon.org
