Description of the Issue and Position
The Texas abortion ban legislation is the most recent example of a significant public outcry. Passed by Republican activists and representatives of the Republican Party, the new restrictive act of September 2021 violated the rights of all women in the state, creating a threat to their health and lives (Tanne, 2021). As a result, abortion is now impossible in Texas, and this fact is reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to repeal abortion protections at the constitutional level. All state residents must undergo the procedure in other states if necessary.
The position of a reasonable person in a democratic, equal, and respectful society can only be one: the state has no right to restrict human rights in any way. The recognition of a fetus as human and the prohibition on its removal from the moment of detection of cardiac activity make no logical, religious, moral, or ethical sense. Therefore, this precedent, relevant only to the state of Texas on this scale and specificity, is perilous, and society must oppose such a practice.
There is ample evidence to support the unreasonableness of such a ban and its relationship to a violation of constitutional rights. The data supporting this belief is provided by sociology, medicine, and psychology researchers, and is driven by common sense (Blackshaw & Rodger, 2019; Tanne, 2021). It is confirmed by many medical, legal, and criminal experts (Blackshaw & Rodger, 2019). In some situations, without a timely abortion, the preservation of a pregnant woman’s life is impossible. Problems with extracting a fetus that die due to various reasons seem legally negligible but exist in Texas (Tanne, 2021). On the moral side, forcing victims of incest or rape to carry unwanted children is simply inhumane.
In the context of worldview, there is a straightforward answer to whether such activities by government activists are worth supporting. Every U.S. citizen is free and has a list of rights defined by the Constitution and international conventions that no one can take away from them. Thus, such precedents can have far more significant consequences if society allows their lives to be disposed of in this way.
Reflection and Objections Handling
There are three main points of view commonly emphasized among proponents of prohibition. Despite the visual logic of the pro-life stance advocated by proponents of abortion bans, it is impossible to agree with such a violation of human rights. A fetus, especially in its early stages, cannot be called a human since it is not fully formed (1). Even missing the point of a potential threat to the mother’s health, no one has the right to forbid another person from doing something or label specific actions as illegal in a particular region.
Religious reasons for banning abortion, voiced by some activists, cannot be supported by religious texts. Religion today no longer fulfills its original purpose, which is to explain the incomprehensible and mass control of human behavior. Moreover, while there are examples in some ancient texts of references to primitive methods of abortion, the initial interpretations of this process were not prohibitive (Howard, 2022). Manipulating the feelings and thoughts of religious people is likewise unacceptable because it violates their rights in the same way.
The third reason is that abortion is artificially interpreted as murder. In this case, a fetus is not a human being before birth legally (Blackshaw & Rodger, 2019). The precedent of prohibition in Texas is also dangerous in its substance, not only violating women’s rights in the state but practically declaring women an incubator, unable to have their point of view and action on the issue. Without countering such shameful decisions by the U.S. government and judicial system, society may be confronted with even stricter and more groundless injunctions.
Indeed, there is every chance to understand the claims of abortion opponents concerning the moral side of the issue. The new life that forms in a pregnant woman must also have a right to exist, and terminating it without reason is, at least in some ways, unethical. However, this should not even be discussed in the case of medical indications made based on a diagnosis (Tanne, 2021). The priority of the fetus having a minimum chance of survival and the life and health of the potential mother cannot be compared in this situation.
In the same way, the crimes of rapists and intrafamilial rapists cannot be justified by forcing the victims of these acts to carry the fetuses for the subsequent destruction of the lives of these same children. It is infrequent for a woman who becomes pregnant in such a situation to be able to raise a child. Despite the development of the social support sector in the United States, potential adoptive parents may not be available. In this case, the forced stay of a child in an orphanage or other appropriate institution is a violation of their rights and a blow to their mental health.
The position of opponents to the termination of a normally healthy and adequately functioning unwanted pregnancy is most understandable. However, there is a clash of opinions between the opposing groups and individuals with the right to control their lives. Thus, the example of prohibition in Texas looks illogical and frightening. Neither medical reasons nor the desire of the pregnant woman can overcome the legislative barrier. Instead of the obligatory consultation with a psychologist to determine the reasons for wanting to terminate the pregnancy, which should have been accepted, and instead of a detailed examination, the authorities chose to ban the abortion. Moreover, such a decision is likewise irrational, which is unacceptable in legislation.
References
Blackshaw, B. P., & Rodger, D. (2019). The problem of spontaneous abortion: Is the pro-life position morally monstrous?The New Bioethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body, 25(2), 103–120. Web.
Howard, M. A. (2022). What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you. The Conversation. Web.
Tanne, J. H. (2021). Texas’s new abortion law is an attack on medical practice and women’s rights, say doctors. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 374, n2176. Web.