Pro-life or Pro-Choice:
Is it Really Our Decision to Make?
As it states in the American constitution, every American is entitled to have the freedom of speech. With the freedom of speech comes the freedom of opinion. Some people make strong opinions off of what they hear and see, and others make strong educated opinions based on things they have researched and experienced. Many people that have opinions like to voice them, and some like to voice them so strongly that it makes decision making harder for others. When it comes to abortion, does the freedom of speech and opinion really give Americans the right to decide the future for a mother and her possible child, or for the child’s future itself?
One of the most prominent places the abortion issue is raised is within the American government. When mixing politics with a controversy, it is proven that the combinations will only make the controversies worsen. Most of the time little problems get blown out of proportion due to the fact that we let politics and religion effect decisions we should be able to make for ourselves. Let us take a look at an example of where the government has taken a small problem and has dramatized and magnified the intensity to now being a subject of argument between every American, and individuals in other countries. William Jasper, senior editor at the New American Magazine, wrote an article titled “’Climate Science’ in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda.” Within Jaspers article he enclosed many compelling examples of how the government has magnified a controversy into something so transverse that the government has “in 2009 sunk 79 billion dollars into” (Jasper 6). His last paragraph sums up the fact that government has more of a say in the controversy of climate change, then the world renowned scientists can say. It does not matter that although these scientists have knowledge and an education to support their research they are forced to keep their mouths shut because the government would no longer fund them if they continued to uncover that the climate scare is virtually no big deal at all. Jasper says, “This super-extravagant lavishing of state funding on a new scientific field has created an instant global climate industry that is government-fed and completely political” (Jasper 6). After reading through Jaspers article, citizens begin to question the government. Although Climate Science and abortion do not have a direct relationship, you would begin to wonder if you could trust our politicians to make decisions about our bodies and our lives as well as our children’s lives. If the government is really as money hungry as Jasper implies should we trust that something like the lives of our children and ourselves mean anything to them?
Now that we have a view of how the government has taken a small issue and turned it into an extreme controversy, let us take a look at how the government plays a role in the abortion decision of if it should be legal or not. David Orentlicher, a team member at the Hastings Center, wrote a short article titled, “The Legislative Process Is Not Fit for the Abortion Debate” where he describes in great detail that the legislative government should not have a say in the abortion debate, and also give us a look at how the politicians can manipulate the subjects to gain voters. Orentlicher gives us insight on what the politicians have in mind when trying to persuade Americans to vote for them. His first explanation of this is when he states, “Indeed, candidates and public officials often prefer to exploit such controversies for electoral gain. By running on “wedge” issues, candidates can attract voters who ordinarily would identify with the opposition” (Orentlicher 13). Although we have a constitution, the right for abortion is not clearly instated in it, and our government has to use the constitution to make well rounded laws. Orentlicher...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document