Should Abortions Be Banned?

Abortion has become a hotly debated topic in recent years with religious and political pressure on both sides of the argument being almost entirely divided. Whole divisions of people are constantly debating whether it's morally acceptable to terminate the life of an unborn fetus, and if the rights of this fetus should be held over the rights of women and their bodies. The argument has become such a huge issue in countries such as the USA that anti abortion groups have been known to inflict violence upon those who are pro abortion, becoming an entirely separate issue known as 'anti abortion violence'. Ironically it's this anti abortion violence that has become the most dangerous practice in the entire process, with the majority of abortions requiring simple medicinal drugs or surgical procedures if the fetus has been carried by the mother for a certain period of time. Abortions are one of the simplest and safest medical procedures, and as a result there were 44 million abortions in total for the whole of last year, although this has been a decreasing figure since the 1980's.

As someone of a libertarian mindset I don't believe the government should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her body unless there are any proven health benefits or disadvantages for that certain issue. As there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that abortions are harmful to the population I can't honestly see the issue in continuing to legalise the process, especially when changing the law would dictate the lives of everyday women. There will be some who argue that it should be the fetus that has the right to decide whether it lives and not the mother, but as the unborn child is essentially a parasite relying on the mother at this stage of its life, it should be the decision of the mother whether or not to terminate the baby. Some will say that aborting a baby is just another form of murder, but surely that would be like claiming that people who refuse to donate organs are murderers since they have the ability to keep a human organism alive, yet refuse to out of personal satisfaction. That's not to say I don't value the life of an unborn fetus; only that I value the rights of the mother more.

To many a fetus should be given the same rights as the mother, since after all they are both human organisms that should both be given human treatment. But to be given human rights an organism has to be considered a person. It's simply not acceptable in this argument to state that a fetus should be considered a person since it has a soul, a theoretical construct that becomes an invalid point in a very real argument. Another hypothetical point often cited is that the child could end up becoming a revolutionary person such as Cher, Celine Dion and Justin Bieber, whose mothers were all considering having an abortion; although in these three cases that would have been a good thing. In this argument we need to look at the facts, and what is a fact is that fetuses are not considered part of the population, are not counted on any national censuses, and don't have the ability to be autonomous organisms. A person is considered aged one not one year after conception, but one year after they have exited the womb. Society and the law evidently doesn't treat fetuses as human beings, so why should that be any different in the abortion argument?

Obviously I wouldn't advocate a procedure that tortured the fetus for a prolonged period of time, but despite what some people believe abortions are not considered to be a harmful process. Research from the American Medical Association found that fetuses do not experience pain until six months into pregnancy, although due to pain being a subjective feature of the human body this claim has been widely disputed. For example pro life campaigner and former doctor Bernard N. Nathanson claimed that he could see the babies silently screaming on ultrasound scans during an abortion, and whilst this isn't exactly a reliable source, it is at least valid evidence that disputes the claim that fetuses cannot feel pain during abortions. This is an unlikely scenario in countries such as the UK where the majority of abortions are undertaken with general anesthetic, meaning pain isn't even a factor in the debate. I understand that this cannot be the case in less developed countries where common drugs are more scarce, but it does suggest that in the developed world the argument of pain shouldn't need to be a consideration in this complex argument.

The main issue I have with banning the process of abortion is that women who are desperate for abortions will be forced to have illegal abortions. Admittedly banning abortions would almost certainly force couples to use abortions as another method of contraception, but would also increase the number of unprofessional abortions that are statistically proven to be much more dangerous than their medical counterparts. The WHO reports that 47,000 people die each year from unsafe abortions, with the majority unsurprisingly occurring in countries where aborting babies is illegal. In reality abortions should theoretically be a safer option than giving birth to a child with a 2012 study in 'Obstetrics & Gynecology' stating that the rate of death from abortions in the USA was 0.6 out of 100,000, as opposed to 8.8 out of 100,000 for giving birth. That's a fourteen times increase, and one that can be replicated by any country if abortions are promoted by the government as an acceptable method of dealing with offspring.

Another flaw that I find with the anti abortion argument is that it doesn't seem just to me that a woman who becomes pregnant from failed contraceptives, rape, or even incest should not be allowed an abortion even when it wasn't the victims fault. The idea that a woman should always give birth even if the baby is unwanted or unable to survive is absurd, yet the fetus is apparently a viable person that cannot be aborted thanks to a blanket ban. Giving birth is a very traumatic process that has huge life changing consequences, and so it doesn't seem fair if the mother is unwilling to have the child. I find the anti abortion argument a huge generalisation that doesn't take into account the individual circumstances a family may face that may result in them not adequately providing for the child. I know from first hand experience that caring for a mentally disabled child is an experience that not every family will be capable of, especially if the family has limited financial resources available to them. Not only is that not fair on the family, but it's not fair for a child to come into the world unwanted. You have to ask yourself whether decades of mistreatment is a better option than a quick painless death. I know that if the child is unwanted then it could be put up for adoption, and in fact there is a decrease in the number of children for adoption in countries such as the USA, but why should a mother be forced to go through childbirth, only for the result to be snatched away from her? Adoption should always be a privilege, not a right, and certainly shouldn't force women into dictating what they do with their bodies.

To conclude I not only think that abortion should remain legal, but actually promoted and subsidised by the government to allow the general population a safe alternative should they fall into pregnancy issues. Whether or not a woman does choose to exercise her right to have an abortion is not up to the government or the general population, and her rights shouldn't be affected by whatever their views are on the subject. Abortions don't affect anti abortion campaigners, and so they have no idea what the mother or family are going through in an issue that varies from person to person. Although I have expressed my support for abortions I would like to add that under no circumstances should they be used as a form of contraception, and surgery should only be a last resort. However abortions are a necessary method for women to control their bodies and life choices that should never be restricted.