The battle for abortion, women’s health and birth control continues to rage. From a huge outcry caused by a Texas law blocking federal funds from Planned Parenthood, to Rush Limbaugh coming under fire for his rant against contraceptive activist Sandra Fluke, it has already been a tense year and many are convinced that there is a war on women. Is it about denouncing women’s rights as the left would claim, or is it about funding the murder of the unborn as the right claims? Is it about choice, life, ethics, or other people’s money?
All of these points boil down to one question: “yes” or “no” on abortion? Is it a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion? Should taxes go to institutions that perform abortions, even if they come from those morally in opposition? Is abortion ethical? Are abortions the equivalent of murder? The solution to these issues can be attained by answering a question on which we may never reach a consensus: is aborting a fetus an acceptable course of action?
Suppose for a moment that abortion is acceptable, and that there are neither questions nor negative implications that arise. Those who are for a woman’s right to choose would win because those on the opposing side would stand for dogmatic control over a woman’s body. The fact that it is indeed the woman’s body, and the woman’s choice to abort, would be indisputable because we live in a country based on liberty for all individuals, men and women. The pro-choice side wins.
Suppose now that aborting a fetus is unacceptable. Abortion is murder, and a fetus has equal rights to a fully formed human being. Under this notion, to maintain a pro-choice position would become the equivalent of supporting the right to kill another individual. If murder is illegal and unethical, abortion would be just as much so and advocating for choice in the matter would be wrong.
Why is it necessary to bring up such obvious points? We cannot solve the abortion debate by bringing up the issue of choice. The stance for choice is useless when the opponent makes the argument for an individual’s right to exist and that “individual” is an unborn child. In observing the strategy of the liberal wing of the American people, the argument for choice continues to be made against “pro-lifers.”
This shows a lack of respect on the part of so-called “pro-choicers,” as they are essentially vilifying their opponents for respect for life as they see it. If those on the pro-life side believe they are fighting for the lives of those they believe are being murdered, their position cannot simply be brushed aside.
How do we solve the issue of abortion and all the problems that stem from it? We must redirect the abortion debate by focusing on whether the fetus is worthy of the same rights as a living human.
This would give way to the debate of whether or not to provide funds for abortions. This is important due to the fact that, as demonstrated by Texas law, a nonprofit organization such as Planned Parenthood can be at the mercy of the federal government.
The GOP might make the argument that it is cutting spending to save money when the group actually wishes to support its anti-abortion views. The issue of funds would be equally relevant if it were in the hands of the liberals, as the funds would have to come from the people, a portion of whom are ethically opposed to abortion but cannot decline being taxed.n In short, being pro-choice is not sufficient enough to argue for abortion. We must focus on deciding whether abortion is murder or not. If an answer can be reached, we can solve myriad related issues.