Abortion has exhibited itself as a moral issue for millions of individuals and communities around the world. Several concerns arise under the discussion of abortion, including a woman’s rights over her own body and reproductive health. The right to privacy, including reproductive health, is seen by many people as a fundamental right to a functioning democracy. The moral issue with abortion arises when thinking about the welfare of conscious beings during pregnancy, as well as during and after birth. Personhood begins once a fetus is able to withstand life outside of the womb and there is currently no scientific evidence demonstrating that fetuses are capable of experiencing pain. Abortion is a decision that is best made by a woman and her doctor. Individuals or groups in society that demoralize those women who support or undergo abortion are perhaps ignorant or apathetic about a woman’s regard for her own emotional reasoning and physical health. Restricting access to safe, legal abortions is a violation of individual rights. The heated debate stands strong in this generation against pro-life and pro-choice. Although some women have access to options other than abortion, rights for abortion should be a societal and legal right. This paper will analyze the physical, moral, and legal aspects of the debated abortion process.

Receiving timely and truthful information regarding abortion early in the decision-making process is very critical to ensure the physical and mental health of women. Thousands of women in the United States are not educated about the time and financial commitments required by the abortion process, leading to ignorance and misinformation about the issue. In the article “The Upside of Abortion Disclosure Laws” written by Erin Bernstein, author of three scholarly papers, explains how abortion disclosure laws can be seen as an obstacle to the process. Her writing describes how certain professional disclosures could not only improve individual and community health, but also provide a positive way of making progress towards abortion rights for women. Much of society does not realize that abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures in the United States. Erin Bernstein explains that “Truthful abortion-supportive disclosure requirements would not only enhance the ability of women to make truly informed decisions about abortion, but would also maximize their satisfaction as consumers of health services” (Bernstein, 192). For example, topics of potential insurance coverage would prove an effective consumer advisory since most woman assume insurance coverage is not available for abortion procedures. With these kinds of topics being discussed for a better understanding of the procedure, it will help woman make the decision they want without overthinking cost fees. Bernstein makes another claim that “By correcting potential misinformation as to the cost, legality, and complication rate of abortion procedures, disclosures could help women make their abortion decisions earlier” (Bernstein, 203). In other words, making abortion decisions earlier in a woman’s pregnancy would benefit her with better medical outcomes and lower procedural costs. Learning more about correct abortion information is important to make sure the process is safe and easy. Women deserve to be made aware of their time and financial constraints early in the pregnancy to avoid possible complications in the later months. Woman who are not aware of the time and financial commitments do have other available options; however, early and truthful disclosures by professionals in the decision-making process helps normalize abortion care within greater fields of women’s health.

Both pro-life and pro-choice advocate groups have accused the other of being affiliated with defenders of slavery and historical supporters of genocide like Hitler. This accusation includes the position of being against or for abortion rights. Charles K. Bellinger, professor of Theology and Ethics and author of several scholarly articles, clarifies this debate by outlining specific, realistic aspects of the process. In his article “The Use of Historical Analogies in the Abortion Debate” he states, “[The debate] of historical analogy goes both directions, and is notable and important because it highlights the reality that, to a great extent, the abortion debate is a contest over how to interpret the moral lessons that history teaches and apply them in our own age” (Bellinger, Paragraph 2). It is believed that the pro-life side has recognized the moral lessons of history more specifically than the pro-choice side; however, the interpretation of history lies at the central foundation of both sides. What is needed to better understand the divide between the two advocate groups is a more developed interpretation of history. He also states that “[society needs] to focus on the time period 1945 to 1970, and come to understand, at a very deep level, the subtle contours of the failure of the Western world to learn the moral lessons that ought to have been learned from Nazism and Communism” (Bellinger, Paragraph 15). The repetitive argument about the definition of personhood is simply ineffective today in this generation. The line of historical argument continues to be ignored, causing the debate between pro-life and pro-choice advocates to be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Sexual violence crimes occur regularly and has devastating physical, mental, and emotional impacts on its victims. Every day, sexual assault crimes are broadcasted throughout media, but there seems to be a lack of focus on the well-being of the women involved. Brooke McGee discusses the legality of abortion in her article “Pregnancy as Punishment for Low-Income Sexual Assault Victims” and explains how Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade gives women the fundamental right to terminate pregnancy. McGee states that before some states rules abortion legal, “It [was] estimated that 1.2 million women each year sought out illegal abortion” (McGee, 81). Illegal abortion does not provide women with the physical and emotional coaching required before, after, and during the abortion process, and thousands are victims of threat from antiabortionists. Illegal abortion is an unsafe procedure with negative medical consequences and has subsequently affected handfuls of women around the world. Many pro-life advocates recognize effects of illegal abortion as the effects of legal, safe abortion, but even pro-choice advocates have tried to bring an end to illegal abortion and ensure safe, correct procedures. History had demonstrated that making abortion legal leads to significant reductions in injuries and deaths caused to women that choose illegal abortion. Additionally, a state’s refusal to provide any access to abortion in cases of rape or incest makes it extremely difficult for low-income women to provide necessities to herself and her child. Although there are other options for a woman and her baby after birth, abortion should be an available option to help low-income sexual assault victims after what they have gone through. After years of judgement and exceptions, low-income sexual assault victims have become constitutionally entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to accessible abortion services through the states’ Medicaid program. 

Both abortion and adoption are emotionally backbreaking choices for a single woman to make. In the article “Why Do More People Choose Abortion Over Adoption?” Micaiah Bilger gives specific reasoning as to why women make the decisions they do for the future of themselves and their child. Micaiah Bilger states, “By choosing adoption, you give your baby the gift of a wonderful childhood, adoptive parents who may otherwise have no opportunity or chance at becoming parents, and yourself a better chance of moving on from this difficult time in your life” (Bilger, Paragraph 9). Although adoption may give a baby a chance at life with parents who at one time did not have an opportunity to have a child, abortion gives women the opportunity to lessen the physical and emotional damage of becoming pregnant due to sexual assault. Pro-life and pro-choice sides of the argument believe that their side is morally correct, but who decides which side is correct? Many people believe that abortion rates are higher than adoption rates in the United States as well; however, previous statistical research on the topic has proven that adoption rates are still much higher than abortion rates in the United States. Both pro-choice and pro-life groups have weaknesses in their platform of the issue, encouraging future generations to settle the debate and provide women of future generations the emotional and physical rights they deserve.

The effects of legalizing abortion have decreased the amount of crime rate in the United States. Although pro-life advocates do not support abortion rights, these rights have helped our society as a whole by dramatically declining crime rates and therefore making this country a less dangerous place for women. Robert Wanderer, editor and contributor to ETC articles, has researched crime rates after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in his article “Do Abortions Reduce Crime?” to push for legalization of abortion, and the results are shocking. Those who made the decision to continue with pregnancy and give birth has resulted in more violent and income crimes. Statistics have shown that many women who are financially unstable raise children that become charged with armed robbery and financial fraud. Abortion rights in some states have given women and society assurance that crime rates will not increase as a result of poor raising of children. Robert Wanderer explains that “States with a rate of abortion have experienced a greater reduction in crime since 1985” (465). Declines in crime are concentrated among men in high-abortion states showing that those who chose to abort have helped those societies in each of those states. Conclusively, legal abortions account for approximately half of the decline in crime rates since the late twentieth century, and it is predicted to keep declining in the future.

The United States Constitution presents several articles and sections to explain that the right to abortion is guaranteed. In Article l, section 9, paragraph 2, the Constitution states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.” Domestic insurgency and foreign invasion have no significance on the right to confine pregnancy. Women who face government-imposed affliction and restrictions to take control of their bodies and finances obtain the right to seek writs of habeas corpus for liberations. Since no women who demand abortion have been charged or tried of criminal offense to accept treatment of this procedure, all judges would have the authority to do so. Woman should have the right to make educated decisions about their own bodies whether it is aborting the baby or keeping it through birth. The closer one looks at the morality of the issue, the easier it is to find more reasons why limitations on abortion are fundamentally unconstitutional and morally inexcusable.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that “no state shall enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens in the United States, nor deny any person its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Cornell Law School has researched each amendment and did not find any reference to abortion while reading the Fourteenth Amendment. However, what can be interpreted from the amendment is that people cannot be denied liberty without due process of law. The Right to Privacy is explained by the Cornell Law School: “The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences” (14 Amendment, Paragraph 1). Since citizens of the United States do in fact have a right to privacy, then that must include the right to have an abortion since bearing or not bearing a child is a specific private matter. 

Rosita is a documentary made by award-winning filmmakers Barbara Attie and Janet Goldwater as they follow a nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl’s journey. There are many women today that face the same or similar situations as Rosita. The true story describes a young girl’s life when she was raped and impregnated. Her unwanted pregnancy became a political obstacle between abortion rights advocates and the antiabortion guard in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. This pregnancy not only damaged her emotionally, but physically as well. The violation of her rights and dignity go on through the film and is an eye-opener to viewers who ignore emotional and health-related reasons for abortion. The girl’s case back in her home country continued to spread through media as Rosita’s pregnancy because a huge risk to her own health was present. If Rosita went through with her pregnancy, the odds of her surviving were extremely low. How could a girl so young be able to physically and mentally withstand nine months of pregnancy? Young girls should not be forced to go through something as traumatic as rape and subsequent pregnancy. This documentary demonstrates the true tragedy that some young women face today, as many are denied the fundamental right to decide their own future.

Morality of issues fall in the hands of each individual worldwide. If there are some doubts as to whether an abortion in a specific case is morally permissible, a woman can make the decision not to go on with the procedure. Additionally, the term “human life” could mean two extremely different things. For example, pro-life advocates believe that human life simply entails possessing human genetic code, while pro-choice advocates believe that human life entails personhood after birth. A “moral person” is one that has the rights and duties as a human. The time at which a fetus gets the right to life can vary from the moment of fertilization to the time of birth. Therefore, if there is no risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, could abortion be morally justified? Society operates on the foundation of natural human rights, strongly suggesting that women should not have restrictions on the decision to continue the abortion procedure. Supporters of the abortion rights movement make a goal to influence the public’s opinion and to attain legal support; restricting abortion rights is parallel to restricting individual rights.
