The 1973 court case, Roe vs. Wade, was a major turning point for abortion in the United States. Prior to this case, abortion was only legal in events where it was needed to save the life of the mother, or in special cases such as rape and incest. The court found that "a woman's right to make her own decisions about her pregnancy deserves the highest level of constitutional protection" (Roe). Since this, there have been two distinct sides to the huge debate; "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life". Those who stand on the "pro-choice" side of the abortion debate would support the final decision in the Roe vs. Wade case and argue that women have the right to decide what happens with and to their bodies. They view abortion merely as a "terminating medical procedure". On the other hand, those who stand on the "pro-life" side of the abortion debate view abortion as the murder of an unborn child that is extremely immoral. But is the issue really this simple? What about certain cases such as incest, rape, and most importantly, health issues that may cause the mother (or the child) to die during birth? Abortion is a very sensitive matter than should not be just an option if a woman simply does not want to have a child for trivial reasons. With that being said, abortion for the convenience of the mother should not be illegal. However, if there are instances such as a health issue that could result in death, rape or incest, abortion should be an option. 

In a YouTube Video entitled, "ABORTION is a Matter of Convenience", "pro-life" supporter Jarod Paul explains that abortion has become a form of "birth control" and a matter of convenience for women who happen to get pregnant and do not want the child. He strongly stresses situations where women are in school or have a job and simply feel as if having a child would not fit into their schedule. Paul goes on to discuss the laws on abortion (prior to the Roe vs. Wade case) where abortion was acceptable to "help" women in situations where their life would be in danger, when they were raped, or when the child would be born with abnormalities and how differently things are now. A very moving point that Jarod Paul makes is that aborted fetal tissues and body parts are being sold after the abortion. This is highly immoral and should definitely should not be happening.

The issue of the selling of aborted fetal tissues is further explored in an article, "The Abortion Debate". In this article, Alex Altman explores the adventure of undercover "pro-life" activist, Daleiden, who went into planned parenthood clinics as either a UCLA graduate student or a manager of a biomedical company that doesn't even exist, just to gather information on what happens to aborted fetal tissues. Daleidon planned one of the largest exploits for just about 3 years. Most of the article gives background information on why Daleidon decided to pursue this plan. In the end, there was no actually evidence that pointed to the illegal use of fetal tissues being sold, however, the accusations stick just as hard. Just to think about aborted fetal tissues being used in such a immoral way is quite disturbing. 

The fact that abortion is now performed freely, instead of for extreme reasons still doesn't sit too well with me. In "Fact #8: Less than 1% of All Abortions are Performed to Save the Life of the Mother", it explains just what the title says. The article even reiterates the point that abortion to save the life of the mother was legal before "convenience" abortion was legalized. Later in the article, there are statistics on why women choose to abort their unborn children. 21% of women get abortions because of inadequate finances to raise a child, 21% were not ready for responsibility, and 16% say that their lives would be changed too much. On the other hand, only 3% of women chose to get an abortion because their unborn child has possible health problems, 3% had health problems, and 1% of women's pregnancies were caused by rape or incest. Those numbers have extremely large gaps and it just goes to show you that majority of abortions are not for significant reasons at all. 

There are some procedures that can, and sometimes must be performed to save the life of the mother. One procedure is called a multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFRP). The article, "When Is An Abortion Not An Abortion", this procedure is explained in great detail. The author of this article, Kimberly Mutcherson argues that a multifetal pregnancy reduction is not the exact same procedure as an abortion so it should not be considered as one or event put in the same category. The multifetal pregnancy reduction is a procedure performed to terminate one or more fetuses in a multifetal pregnancy (triplets or quadruplets, for example), in order to increases the chances that the other fetuses and the pregnant woman will emerge from the pregnancy healthy (Mutcherson). Unlike a woman who would undergo an abortion, a woman who undergoes a multifetal pregnancy reduction would remain pregnant and have a better chance of being healthy. Mutcherson stresses that because the multifetal pregnancy reduction has been so strongly connected to abortions, that it gets all the negative connotations involved that comes with the territory. 

Linking back to medical procedures in order to save the mother's life, it has been confirmed that sometimes, abortions are necessary to save a woman's life. The American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists issued a statement saying that "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event" (Doctors). Erika Levi, an obstetrician and gynecologist at UNC Chapel Hill, says that there are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy. Levi names a few examples of such cases, including severe infections, heart failure, and severe cases of preeclampsia. Preeclampsia is a condition where a woman develops extremely high blood pressure and is at risk of having a stroke. The article then goes to give an example of one cases where a woman had no other option, than to have an abortion to save her life. Philadelphia woman, Cecily Kellogg, was almost six months pregnant with twin boys when she developed a severe case of preeclampsia. One of the fetuses had already died, her liver and kidney had shut down and she was bound to start seizing at any moment. An abortion was the only way for Kellogg to stay alive. 

If you think about it, there are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In an article titled, "Answers From Pro-Lifers", Katha Pollitt interviews several women who consider themselves to be on the "pro-life" side of the debate. The women were asked several questions about aspects of abortion and gave their opinions and potential solutions to reduce abortion rates. Many of the women suggested that birth control is the number one thing proven to reduce abortions. Another way to reduce abortion rates is to practice abstinence because if you don't want a baby, you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you could potentially make one. Lastly, the women state that men should be taught to have self-control and "keep it in their pants" to prevent unwanted pregnancies instead of solely putting all the pressure on women. 

On the other hand, there are some that say that abortion is never even necessary to save the life of the mother.The article, "Is Abortion Ever Necessary To Save The Life Of The Mother?", strongly disagrees with the thought that abortion is ever justified to "save the life of the mother". The article argues that there are certain procedures that may indirectly cause the death of an unborn child, but they are not, and should not be considered as "true abortions" A "true abortion" is a procedure with the direct intention of ending a pregnancy and is not just something that can be used as a treatment for any sort of health issues. However, there are certain procedures that may indirectly lead to the death of an unborn child.  For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion (Is Abortion). 

What about instance in which a woman's pregnancy is cased by rape? Is she justified in getting an abortion then? In an article, "Should The Baby Resulting From A Rape Be Aborted", Michael Slick claims that a baby that is a product of rape should not be aborted because "it is not the baby's fault that its is being bought into the world" and that "the baby should not be sacrificed because of an indignity suffered against the woman". Personally, I have to disagree with this. If a woman is pregnant because of a rape, every moment of her pregnancy would remind her of what potentially was the worst moment of her life. And say that the woman decided to go through with the pregnancy. What if the child looks identical to it's rapist father? It would only serve as a horrible reminder. You almost must take into account that the mother will not have the father's support in raising the child, which is also not a very good thing.

Along with the issue of rape, incest is also a very disturbing means of conceiving a child. Incest can be defined as sexual contact with persons who are so closely related that marriage between them would be illegal (Incest). Examples of incest would include relationships between parent and child, aunt and nephew, cousins, and other close relationships as such. Not only is that just morally wrong, but the child is bound to have issues in itself. In an article, "The Problem With Incest", it is said that "The problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect." A study was done on  a group of Czechoslovakian children who can be considered products of incest. It showed that majority of the children were born with severe birth defects, suffered an early death, or had mild mental impairment. Knowing this, bringing a child into this world, knowing that they will not be able to live up to their full potential, as a child conceived under "normal" circumstances does not seem fair to the mother or to the child.

 I have been extremely interested in this topic for many years now. Growing up where I did, many girls in my high school got pregnant well before they graduated, and very little of them decided to keep their baby. Of course that came with a lot of discussion and debate that peaked my interest. Besides that, growing up in the church, abortion is greatly frowned upon and the pastor, along with the congregation would always add the topic of abortion to the "don't you even think about it" list of terrible things. I have no personal experience with abortion, but because it is something that has always been a heavy topic in and around my life, it is hard not to be intrigued by it. 

This research question is a very arguable topic because instead of being the generic argument of whether or not abortion should either be illegal or legal, it is a more specific argument that abortion for convenience sake should by no means be legal, which in my opinion, causes more in depth thought on the issue. With pregnancy, there are many aspects to think about -  most importantly, the health of the mother and the child or children. One thing that all of my sources agree on is that abortion is either a way to help save a life, or a way to just get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Prior to doing such in-depth research on this issue, I stood strictly on the "Pro-Life" side of the argument, but after reading several of these articles, my definition of "Pro-Life", along with my views, have slightly changed. Being "Pro-Life" is not just to be concerned with the life of the unborn child, but to be mindful of the mother of the unborn child as well. 

There are many possible solutions to end convenience abortions. If men and women do not want children, they should either use multiple forms of contraception (for example, birth control and condoms) if they choose to have sex. If that doesn't work for them, then maybe they just shouldn't have sex at all. Adoption is another great alternative to having an abortion if having a child just "doesn't fit into a plan right now". There are several men and women in the world who would love to have the honor of being a parent but are unable to conceive children of their own. If a woman can bear a child, without any mental or physical risks, she should carry the child to term, go through with birth, and if the child is still not what she wants, then giving the baby up for adoption is the best bet. If there is no risk to the woman's (or the baby's) life or health (physically as well as mentally), there absolutely no reason for abortion to be an option, at all.

