Some people say that abortion is killing a weak, defenceless baby and that is should never be legal in any society. But what those people might not realise, is that when abortion was illegal in Spain a few years ago, between 1972 to 1982, 8,500 number of women died because they did not want an infant and they had to carry out the medical process of abortion by themselves. Fortunately in 1982, abortion was made legal and in this way thousands of women could prevent a horrible death by having operations rather than unskilled procedures. Abortion can save thousands of lives of women and thus, should remain legal in Spain.
Imagine for a moment that you were in a situation where a choice had to be made. On one side you have the physical life of an infant and in the other you have the mental and emotional life of a mother and her unwanted child. Which side can we, as civilised humans, claim as more valued? As a moral and ethical issue, abortion is a dilemma for society.
From a historical perspective, the purpose of abortion has been undoubtedly to act as a life saver for both child and mother. In the two decades before abortion was legal in Spain, it's been estimated that about one million women per year underwent illegal abortions. In the process, thousands of Spanish women died and thousands more were severely injured. Whenever a society outlaws abortions, it induces the women to seek abortions in the back streets where they become extremely vulnerable. Thus, to prevent any more deaths, we must keep abortion legal in Spain.
Our nation is polarized over the legal, political, and moral status of abortion. The two sides of abortion include, "pro-choice" and "pro-life." In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would think that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman and that the government has no right to interfere. A pro-lifer would think that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive and that this life puts on us a moral obligation to preserve it and that abortion is similar to murder. This moral incongruity is the problem that must be resolved. Many opponents of abortion, who believe that a right to life outweighs a right to choose, are, nevertheless, prepared to give exceptions in the case of pregnancies coming from rape and incest. Many anti-abortionists are constantly arguing against the issue of "murder." They state that murder itself is wrong and ask, "How can one throw away God's gift of life?" It's quite ironic: Aren't they murdering doctors and patients, therefore, throwing away God's gift of life too? Because six out of seven big abortion clinics (where 88% of all abortions take place) are the targets of antiabortion harassment and since 1977, 43 abortion clinics have been bombed or burned in this country. Apparently, they are just as guilty as the women and the doctors that carry out abortions.
Some of the pro-life activists base their ideas of morality entirely on the current teaching of the Church. Others support their opinion with scientific reasons. Dr. Michael Hoffman, President of the National Right to Life Committee, considers the embryo to be a human being from the moment of conception. His definition of "human being" depends upon the forty-six chromosomes first present in the fertilized ovum, or known as the zygote. "Contained within the single cell who I once was," he says, "was the totality of everything I am today." If Dr. Michael Hoffman defines "human being" as the fourty-six chromosomes that were present in the the zygote, then what does he define as "murder?" For example, we eat meat such as cattle. Doesn't the cattle we eat come from a genetic makeup of chromosomes, just like the human body? Is it okay to murder an animal's "chromosome" life while we relentlessly strive to preserve a human soul? It seems as if he's labeling the human life as more valuable than any other life. The truth is, we all are living and if we...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document