For centuries, women have tirelessly battled against injustices and infringements upon their intrinsic rights. Abortion rights, for instance, despite being one of the many rights fought for for decades, is still a prevailing debate and controversial topic in today’s society. It is crucial to allow women to remain in control of their own bodies in today’s society, and to not strip them of their basic bodily autonomy. Abortion rights provide women with countless benefits, and to abolish those rights would be an injustice to women everywhere. 

Roe v. Wade, a supreme court case that reached a decision in 1973, gave women the right to receive abortions under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. This ruling was a huge landmark for women, who now could legally receive safe, proper medical procedures in lieu of illegal, dangerous, “back-alley” abortions. According to Lisa Haddad with the U.S. National Library of Medicine, “Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortions annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%).” This statistic was recorded in 2009, during a time in which abortion had been legalized for quite some time. If abortion rights are revoked, this death toll will certainly rise. The fact that women receive such a drastically high number of unsafe abortions during a time in which abortion is legal signifies that the number of women who will receive unsafe abortions will skyrocket if abortion rights are stripped. If the court decision from Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes illegal, women will undoubtedly proceed to take measures into their own hands. This theory is supported by Irin Carmon’s article, "If Abortions Become Illegal, Here's How the Government Will Prosecute Women Who Have Them," from The Washington Post, which asserts that conservatives and many other anti-abortionists will prosecute women who try to undergo abortions, instead of the physicians who were legally allowed to perform them under the Roe v. Wade decision. Prosecuting women who seek out abortions is a deplorable and unjust action to take against women, no matter what they desire to do with their bodies. Allowing abortion to remain legal keeps women safer, because no matter the legality, abortions are inevitably going to occur. 

There are many instances in which abortion is a completely moral route to take in regards to a pregnancy. Author Mary Lunsford asserts that “there are boundless reasons as to why a woman may not be capable of carrying a fetus, should not carry a fetus, or simply does not want to carry a fetus. These reasons, however, should not matter. Which life has more intrinsic value, and who has the right to decide? The fetus of a pregnancy that very well may kill a woman with preeclampsia, a fetus resulting from a rape, or the fetus of a woman who is unable to afford prenatal care? And what about the woman? Regardless of her reason to abort, denying a woman of that personal choice would effectively deny her of the most basic human liberties.” If a fetus was conceived as a result of rape, the mother might not want to bring that child into the world in order to prevent any further psychological and emotional trauma. Abortion should be an option if the fetus is deemed to not be viable outside the womb. Bringing a child into the world for it to only experience a brief, poor quality of life would only bring grief and suffering to both the child and the mother. It would be ethically wrong to force a woman who knows her child wouldn’t have a chance at survival or a good life to bring a fetus to term.  Additionally, if the pregnancy is causing health complications or is threatening the life or health of the mother or the fetus, opting to terminate the pregnancy should always be an available option to the mother. 

Many pro-life supporters would condemn the aforementioned notion that a mother should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life advocate Lauren Galvan claims in the article, “10 Reasons Why I’m Pro-Life,” that “being able to abort offspring is not a fundamental right and in fact is the complete antithesis of female empowerment and equality.” Galvan’s belief that the right to have an abortion is not a fundamental right is uninformed and unfair to women. Considering that a fetus is connected to and inside of the mother, and also shares the nutrients and oxygen from the mother’s blood supply, the mother can therefore dictate what is done with her own body and whatever’s inside it. As explained by Kelli Raines in her article, “A Response to Your Body Autonomy Argument,” “there is a concept called body autonomy. It's generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.” Since bodily autonomy is considered to be basic human right, depraving women of the choice to control what occurs inside of their own body is immoral and unjust. 

To address the second half of Lauren Galvan’s claim that abortion is the “antithesis of female empowerment and equality,” I believe that reproductive rights and legalized abortions are anything but. Allowing women to make their own choices regarding their bodies and futures, and not trapping them in unwanted pregnancies, seems to be the very epitome of female empowerment and equality. Galvan believes that allowing a primarily male government to dictate what women choose to do with their bodies is “female empowerment and equality,” whereas any other pro-choice advocate would argue that allowing men to dictate what women do with their bodies is regressing society to a time in which women had no equality or rights.

The article “How the War on Women's Health Is Bringing 'The Handmaid's Tale' to Life; The documentary 'Birthright: A War Story' tells of a world in which women's wombs are controlled by governments and ideologies instead of individuals” relates the current position of pregnant women in the U.S. to that of the women in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale, shining light on how unfair and controlling today’s government is in regards to the reproductive rights of women. In the dystopian novel, the government and society controls every aspect of a woman’s pregnancy, creating a society filled with fearful and oppressed women. If women in the U.S. lost their ability to choose, the american government would be viewed as just as unfair and oppressive towards women as the government in the novel. The current U.S. government’s attempts to assert control over the decisions women make with their own bodies is an unjust and intrusive application of power. A government of primarily conservative males should not be able to have a say in the individual lives of pregnant women. 

An example of how the government is attempting to assert control over women’s reproductive rights is the recently passed Ohio “heartbeat” abortion bill, which drastically limits abortion rights. This bill bans any abortions after the point at which doctors are able to detect a fetal heartbeat, which usually occurs at around six weeks after conception. Most states currently ban abortion from anywhere after the third trimester of pregnancy to after 24 weeks of gestation. 

This article provides evidence of the growing hostility of anti abortionists since Trump’s election, and how the new law makers in the White House are working to cut back women’s reproductive rights. By passing this law, women’s fundamental rights are being infringed upon. 

Denying a woman the right to choose is denying a woman the right to control her own body. According to pro-choice advocate Mary Lunsford in her article, “15 Reasons to be Pro-Choice,” “actively denying a woman of her right to choose is a reprehensible and violent attempt to control her body.” A statistic provided in the article asserts that “in 2008, approximately 41 percent of all pregnancies were reported as unintentional. In other words, some 85,362,000 pregnancies were unplanned.” To remedy the vast amount of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies that could potentially be terminated, schools and universities should implement more rigorous sex education courses. If people are more educated on how to prevent pregnancies and how to be more cautious, the number of unintentional pregnancies in the U.S. will drop. If the number of unwanted pregnancies drops, the number of abortions drops. If less people are getting abortions, the issue of whether or not to allow abortion to remain legal would not be as pressing of an issue, because people who would have sought out an abortion before would now be educated on how to prevent pregnancies and would less likely get pregnant in the first place.

Furthermore, if the availability of contraceptive methods is increased, the amount of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies will decrease. However, ironically, many pro-life advocates who are attacking abortion providers are also attacking contraceptive providers. By supporting and pushing contraceptive providers to reach wider audiences and sell more products,     more people will be more equipped to avoid unintentional pregnancies that later lead to abortions. For instance, Planned Parenthood is an organization which is openly condemned by anti-abortionists. However, the services that Planned Parenthood provide are crucial in combatting unwanted and unintentional pregnancies. For example, Planned Parenthood provides preventative educational courses to youth. Instead of condemning the women who decide to terminate unintentional pregnancies, both pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike should be pushing programs like Planned Parenthood to prevent pregnancies that would have ended in abortion. Abortion always should remain an option for women, yet a better solution for pro-life supporters than abolishing all women’s reproductive rights would be to promote better sex education and contraceptive use in order to drastically decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. 

Another example of how the pro-choice viewpoint is ethically superior to the pro-life viewpoint is the idea that sex is a natural aspect of all living creatures’ lives. Many pro-life advocates will argue that if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should refrain from having sex. This viewpoint is sexist towards women, not only because it places all the blame of the pregnancy on the woman, but it also only condemns the woman’s role in the conception of the fetus. Mary Lunsford explains how “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Like all sexually reproductive organisms, humans are naturally inclined to reproduce. Also like many sexually reproductive species, humans frequently have sex for enjoyment. Humans are biologically and emotionally inclined to be sexual, and to punish humans for acting as such would negate our nature.” 

Another common response a pro-life advocate gives to undermine the morality of abortion is the alternative of adoption. In theory, if every unwanted fetus could get adopted, abortion would be much more likely to only be resorted to in dire or necessary situations. However, the idea that most, if not all, unwanted children do eventually get adopted is naive and foolishly optimistic. Despite the endless promises from pro-life advocates that all children who aren’t wanted by their mothers can simply get adopted instead of aborted, there are still over 153 million orphaned children globally. To quote Mary Lunsford once more, “anti-choice protestors are often inclined to make empty promises to “adopt your child” and “support you through your pregnancy.” Despite their pleas and vows, they are effectively neglecting the 102,000 adoption eligible, already-born U.S. children in the foster care system, and the 13 million parentless children throughout the world.” It’s difficult to argue that adoption is more ethical than aborting a fetus when there’s already over 100 thousand orphans in the U.S. in need of adopting. By pushing women to bring unwanted children into the world that are just going to end up directly in the foster care system, it’s adding to another ethical problem of creating an ever growing amount of orphans who will never get adopted or live good lives. 

Despite the fact that the Roe v. Wade court decision made it legal for women to receive abortions, the procedure remains not widely accessible to many women. According to Susan Yanow’s article, “It’s Time to Integrate Abortion into Primary Care,” “the Roe v Wade decision made safe abortion available but did not change the reality that more than 1 million women face an unwanted pregnancy every year. Forty years after Roe v Wade, the procedure is not accessible to many US women.” Not only does Yanow advocate for the allowance of abortion to remain a legal option to women, but she suggests the integration of abortion into primary care. Due to the dwindling number of specialized abortion providers, it would make it easier for women to gain access to safer and more comfortable abortions if they were provided by their primary care physician. The article states that “Specialized abortion clinics performed 70% of all abortions in 2008, yet the hostile political climate those opposed to abortion have created is forcing the numbers of these clinics to decline every year. The number of abortion providers has declined dramatically, from 2908 in 1982 to 1787 in 2005. Eighty-seven percent of all US counties lacked an abortion provider in 2008.” If pro-life advocates are truly concerned with the wellbeing of both the mother and the fetus, then they should support the acceptance of abortion into primary care for women. If abortion is offered to women through primary care, it would help tremendously in the effort to provide safe, efficient abortions and minimize the damaging repercussions to both the mother or the fetus that can accompany the all too frequently occuring back-alley abortions. 

Reproductive rights for women is one of the most prevalent and controversial topics in today’s society. It is crucial to allow women to maintain their right to choose whether or not they receive an abortion because it is a fundamental human right to maintain bodily autonomy. There are many situations in which abortion should be accepted as an alternative to carrying a fetus to term. For instance, when it is medically necessary for the fetus to be aborted to save the mother’s life, abortion should be an option. When the child would not be able to survive on its own outside of the womb, abortion should be an option. Pregnancy should never be mandatory for women. Many pro-life advocates enforce the idea that adoption is always an option to avoid abortion, yet there are millions of orphaned children already in the foster care system who no one is adopting. Allowing women to maintain their reproductive rights is allowing women to maintain their equality. If a predominantly male government gains the power to dictate what a woman does with her own body and future, women as a whole will be regressing in society. For years, women have fought tirelessly for the same rights that have been handed to men on a silver platter. Roe v. Wade may have been a crucial landmark in the fight for reproductive rights, yet there is still more that needs to be accomplished if women want to be fully autonomous and in control of their own futures. To take away women’s right to choose would be to take away the equality and justice women have been fighting for for decades.

             