Monica Delgado

Instructor Jason Lobell

English 110

November 17th, 2023

In favor of abortion

“Worldwide, 1 in 4 pregnancies will result in abortion” (Amnesty International Organization). An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, often executed before the beginning of the second trimester. It can also be defined as the voluntary termination of a pregnancy (Cornell Law School). Abortion is a basic healthcare need for all women, despite social differences or economic status, that is being denied by a discriminative constitution, violating human rights. Forcing anyone to carry an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy and a form of contributing oppression for women. Despite abortion being illegal or severely punished by the law, many women will seek out dangerous and unsafe procedures, regardless of the law (Medoff, 491). Furthermore, abortion is a human right and need that has to be available for all women, given that criminalizing it does not reduce its number, but increases the number of unsafe procedures, putting at risk women’s lives in denial of a human right to bodily integrity.

The abortion debate has been present in American society for what may seem centuries now, until its legalization with Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that any person may seek an abortion “until a fetus becomes viable”, meaning capable of living outside the womb (Oyez). It was stated as the federal constitutional right to interruption of the pregnancy before 24-28 weeks. Nevertheless, it was overturned on June 24, 2022, almost half a century after being declared a constitutional right. The overturn gives the individual states the power to decide regarding the ban or permission of reproductive

rights (Housman). Up to this day, 43 states ban abortion at some point during the pregnancy: 14 states ban abortion completely, 2 states ban abortion after six weeks, 2 states ban abortion at 12 weeks and 2 states ban abortion at 15 weeks. (Guttmacher Institute). The members of the Supreme Court have all expressed anti-abortion ideologies in the past, and stated that Roe v. Wade was “wrong, for many reasons” and “on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided” (Brennan Center). Some of the arguments that the Supreme Court and anti-abortion entities include the idea that abortion is the right to “murder” (Patel, 1), the belief that life starts at the moment of conception, adoption as an alternative and the fetal potential argument.

Science and the medical perspective present evidence that defends the pro choice side. First, the conviction that abortion is murder, and that life starts at the moment of conception has been disproved since the start of the argument for reproductive rights until the overturn of Roe v. Wade by science through research. Using the words of Adrienne L. Tierney, doctoral student in human development at Harvard Graduate School Program and Charles A. Nelson III, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School, the brain is not fully structurally formed until after the 25th week after conception, and the first synapses are generally observed by about the 23rd week of gestation (Tierney and Nelson III). The maturation of brain formation and fetal brain activity expands largely consisting of local patterns of connectivity from the 28th week until the 30th (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Thus, no brain activity (synapses or neuron movement) is present until after this period. Consequently, the claim that fetal brain activity is not present until the 25th week of gestation, invalidates at the same time the fetal pain argument. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the fetus to feel pain requires a comprehensive network of neural connections in the brain rather than the presence or absence

of a specific region or set of connections (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Therefore, a fetus cannot feel pain until at least 24-25 weeks after necessary connections to transmit signals from peripheral nerves to the brain are developed. Because it lacks these connections and structures, a fetus does not have the capacity to feel pain until after that time period (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Based on the non-existence of brain activity and the lack of fetal pain before week 24, a fetus before this period cannot be considered an independent human being, given that it lacks individuality, and biologically depends on a third party permanently.

Fetal life can neither be defined by the existence of a unique sequence of DNA. The existence of a unique and different existence of DNA is not a determining factor to justify the existence of life in a fetus. This definition would exclude twins, and variants of DNA such as conjoined twins that do not possess individual and unique patterns of DNA. Following such a definition, certain tumors and teratomas can also be considered human life, given the existence of several teratoma cases that possess a unique sequence of DNA and sometimes the capacity to develop organs, such as the case of a sacrococcygeal teratoma with a completely formed eye and intratumoral DNA ploidy heterogeneity (Sergi et. al) and a case of a mature ovarian cystic teratoma (Kuno et. al). DNA cannot be used as a determinant factor to defend the criminalization of abortion.

Another perspective that may be an approach is the fetal potential argument. Such a claim defends and highlights the fetus’ potential to become a human being and enjoy life, develop an identity and therefore its destruction would be morally impermissible. However, this argument has been ridiculed by philosophers due to its contradiction. If we hold to this claim, it would signify that contraceptives and birth control is therefore, as morally wrong as

the act of terminating the pregnancy. If a zygote possesses the probability of life, philosophers claim we must hold to the same regard the human gametes (sperm and egg cells) that possess the same potential to develop a human life. Thus, following the probability principle, contraception, birth control and even abstinence would have to be perceived as morally wrong and therefore, would have to be criminalized because of its potential and probability to become a life (Alvarez Manninen).

Under the same ethical questioning, in vitro fertilization should be considered as morally unacceptable as the abortion act. In vitro fertilization is the joining of a woman’s eggs and a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish, in vitro meaning outside of the body, also known as assisted conception (MedlinePlus.gov). The wastage of embryos from this practice demonstrates to be 85% of the samples that are used to assist conception on those who look for these procedures (Ghazal and Patrizio). During this process, more than half of the embryos are thrown out, wasted. All of this reflects on the fetal potential argument, if the 85% of embryos that were discarded had the potential to become a human life, therefore, these legal practices would be immoral and considered massive murder.

Additionally, the criminalization of abortion does not reduce its number, but forces those who need it to seek unsafe procedures. The illegalization of abortion does not stop the need and demand from women who seek these services. Making abortion illegal doesn’t decrease the number of abortions, but forces women to make use of unsafe and inadequate procedures that put at risk their integrity and physical and mental wellbeing (Doucleff). Moreover, its criminalization contributes to high maternal mortality rates. According to the CommonWealth Fund Organization, a private organization that supports independent research on health care issues, maternal mortality in states that banned and criminalized abortion was

62% higher than in abortion-access states (CommonWealth Fund Organization). The same organization affirms that maternal deaths in the U.S. relative to other high-income countries is significantly larger. In addition, for every major racial or ethnic minority, maternal deaths are higher in abortion-restriction states compared to abortion-access states. Banning abortion nationwide would increase maternal mortality by 21% of pregnancy related deaths and an overall 33% increase for women of color. Carrying a pregnancy is 14 times riskier than having an abortion when such a procedure is done in a safe and adequate environment (Marshall). When compared, deaths for pregnancy are exponentially higher than deaths and complications regarding safe abortions: the pregnancy associated net death rate was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions (Raymond and Grimes). Banning abortions does not decline its number, but coerces women to seek unsafe procedures, forces them to give birth and risks their general wellbeing in the process, together with increasing maternal mortality rates.

The legalization of abortion, in addition to providing safe and accessible services for women who need it, contributes to an economy in progress and improves quality of life for society. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research asserts that having a pregnancy affects the implications of education or joining the workforce. The access to an abortion provides women with more control over their fertility, and a more likely investment in their own human capital, increased schooling and improved labor market outcomes. Abortion access reduces teen fertility and provides young girls with more opportunities to engage in education and consequently, having higher opportunities in the labor market. Abortion access also increases women’s participation in the workforce, improving the quality of life of themselves and their families, with more planning and time organization. The study also affirms that

children born from women with abortion access had lower poverty rates and were more likely to graduate from higher education level (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2).

Furthermore, the easy access to abortion for women would save the money for the state, improving the economy and assuring that every kid who is born is wanted and has the resources to be raised in a healthy environment. Abortion access would decrease the burden of healthcare costs on taxpayers. A state-by-state analysis by the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that for every dollar spent to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford it, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenses (A. Torres et. al, 1), demonstrating that the net savings for the nation as a whole over a two-year period if abortions were accessible and publicly funded in each one of the states would be of at least $339.6 million (Torres et. al). Access to abortion would guarantee savings of millions for the state regarding healthcare costs, and would ensure that kids would be raised in an economically stable and healthy home.

To review, the arguments of abortion being murder and a cause of pain for the fetus has been reviewed and disproved by science, as long as abortion is available before the 25th week of development, due to the lack and capacity of the embryo to possess brain activity. The existence of unique patterns of DNA is not enough as an individual reason to justify the existence of human life in the early stages after conception. From an ethical approach, the fetal potential argument is also invalid and discarded by philosophers due to its own contradiction. The access to abortion would ensure the safety of girls and women who seek out these procedures, taking into account that criminalization does not reduce the number of abortions but increase the number of unsafe procedures. Because of this, the illegalization of it increases maternal mortality and poverty rates in states where it is completely criminalized.

Access to it would guarantee savings regarding healthcare for the nation and safety for children who are born under abortion access, as well as economic stability. Abortion access nationwide is necessary and vital for the reproductive rights of women., it ensures their safety and general wellbeing, allowing them to participate in their own education and in the workforce. Abortion is a human right necessary that reinforces bodily autonomy for women. It has been proven that it contributes to the general wellbeing of society and contributes to its improvement. Women have the right to decide over their own body, health and life.