Abortion was a huge topic in the last century. By the word “abortion” is in this paper meant both, the induced abortion and late termination of pregnancy. The United States are with the Netherlands the only country in which it is legal to get an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. In theory it is possible to get an abortion at the day before the child should be born in those countries. The reasons for an abortion are different. The most frequent reasons are that the woman wanted to postpone childbearing, the woman couldn’t afford a baby, the woman had relationship problems or the partner didn’t want the pregnancy or the pregnancy would disrupt the education or job or the woman didn’t want more children. 3.3% of the women had an abortion because of health issues of the baby and 2.8% because of health issues of the woman. There is a debate about the topic of abortion. One side is called the ‘pro-life’ opinion, which argues with the value of life of the child and the other is called the ‘pro-choice’ opinion, which argues with the freedom of choice about the body of the woman.
In my opinion the big question in this discussion is when cells in the body of the woman become a human. In the United States murder is a crime which is punished by the government. In the moment we consider something a human and kill it, it is seen as murder. If a woman gets an abortion, it is legal, because the developing cells in her body are not considered a human by the mother. If somebody kills a pregnant woman, the person can be sued for killing two humans. In both situations it is the same object of developing cells in the woman, in one situation considered a human, in the other not.
There are some arguments, which speak against a consideration of the cells a human. The first argument is, that the cells are not a human, because they cannot survive alone outside of the body of the mother and are dependant of the mother. First, if we allow a late termination of pregnancy, we actually allow killing a human, which could survive outside of the body. Second, an infant also cannot survive outside of the body without anybody, which shows that it is cruel to say that you can kill something, because it could not survive without somebody else.
This argument also often goes with the explanation that the cells in the body of a woman cannot think like a human, therefore they are not considered a human. When we don’t consider human beings as human, because they cannot think, we shouldn’t have any problems with killing mentally disabled people, because they also cannot think and just cause problems. That argumentation is also inhumane.
Another argumentation is the comparison of the cells to other normal cells or bacteria and saying that in scientific terms there is no difference in this stadium. Those people say that those are just cells and nothing more, which makes it moral to remove those cells. For this argumentation I would like to think about a question. If a pregnant woman is asked “What are you pregnant with?”, there will be no other answer than “With a human of course”. Actually there is a difference between those cells, which are developing in a woman body and other cells, because the cells, which are developing in a woman body are meant to be a human. This term sounds very religious, but even for an Atheist it is pure logic. They will become a human, while other cells will just stay in their actual state.
Looking on those arguments, which are not really persuasive, I don’t see any reason why the developing cells in the body of a woman shouldn’t be considered a human. Of course the human isn’t fully developed, but it is in a state of its life of development, like young people developing in one direction, gaining abilities and properties, or old people developing in the other direction, often losing abilities and psychological health.
Another debate deals with the topic of the right of the mother choosing what is happening in and with her body. In this moment we are comparing the right of choice and the right of live. Does a person have a right to decide whether an innocent person is allowed to live or not? No person has this right, but we give it to those women. We give the right of choice a higher value than the right of a human life, which is the highest of all rights.
Every day we the people take 3 000 opportunities of life. If you will ask the most of the people, if they would like to be removed from the body of their mother and would never have the opportunity of living, they would probably say that they wouldn’t like that to happen to them. Why are we making decisions about which baby is worth to be born and which is not? Why do we allow that, but say that nobody can take away the life of an old suffering person? Isn’t everybody equal regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Shouldn’t we all try to save life and give hope?
Seeing all those points my opinion is clear. Through abortion we take the possibility of a human to have a life. Comparing the standpoints of both sides I come to the conclusion that this is wrong and that we have to change the law regarding abortion, not just prohibit it, but find a way that abortion will be, when not medically necessary, a not needed alternative. Because of that I say: