After reading both the pro-life and pro-choice websites, it seems that the pro-choice movement has better arguments than its pro-life counterpart. The arguments presented by the NARAL website are rooted in reality and practicality rather than personal, moral convictions and emotionally charged opinions. The NARAL website presents the information in a "problem- solution" format: They present the issues that are on the table regarding abortion, birth control, sex education, etc. and then continue to show how their cause combats these problems. Furthermore, none of their arguments infringe on the rights of others. They never make any claims such as "all teen pregnancies should be terminated" or "women must take birth control." All of their options are just that-- they are options. Not obligations that everyone must follow. They recognize that not all women feel that abortion is right and therefore advocate for the availability of birth control and abortion for those who find the option appealing. On the National Right to Life website they, unsuccessfully in my opinion, use emotions to try and sway people. When they describe abortion, they go into intense detail about exactly how the fetus is terminated, clearly trying to change people's opinions by inspiring sympathy for the fetus as well as fear surrounding the procedure of abortion. On their "Get the Facts" page, they describe abortion as a decision that will inspire, "a lifetime of potential physical and mental health problems." Although the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not one to be taken lightly, the website does seem to overdramatize the act of abortion. Overall, the pro-choice movement seems to be winning the battle. They present themselves in a less emotional and more pragmatic way than many pro-life advocates. Also, the pro-choice movement in no way hurts those who do not support it. If abortion does not appeal to a woman, she is under no obligation to choose it. The flexibility and accommodating nature of this side of the argument is where it truly surpasses the pro-life movement.
As a 17 year old who considers herself to be a strong supporter of the pro-choice campaign, I still believe that it is necessary that a parent is notified if his or her daughter is a minor and considering receiving an abortion. I think, to a degree, an abortion must be treated like any other medical procedure, with a parent signature needed for the process to be completed. Even though I think it is a woman's right to choose, the rights of minors are restricted and I think it is only fair that the restrictions apply across the board, including abortion.
However, the issue of consent is slightly different in the case of notifying the father. Since a child is just as much the mother's as it is the father's, I think that the father should definitely be notified before the abortion takes place because he has the right to know if his child's life is being terminated. Even so, the father of the child has no legal control over the mother (if the mother is a minor or not) and ultimately has no right to control what the mother does to her body. Therefore, I think the father should be notified, but consent in unnecessary.
I was pleasantly surprised by the Illinois abortion laws. Even though I disagree with some of them such as the spousal consent law and the TRAP law, I thought most of the laws were very reasonable. I also agreed with a few of the laws that fell under the "anti-choice" category, such as the law that prevents taxpayers from paying for abortion. I think this law is very justified because it is unfair to make Illinois taxpayers pay for a procedure that, while very significant in a woman's life, is largely based on personal choice. Furthermore, I think it would detrimental to the pro-choice movement as a whole if it was forcing those who do no believe in abortion to fund abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment