U.S. Views On Abortion

In order to grow my understanding as to how the U.S., a country with freedom for all, is responding to abortions, I read the article published on the Slate, titled “Here’s How We Know the Supreme Court Is Preparing to Devastate Abortion Rights” by Mike Joseph Stern. The article explains the Supreme Court’s plans listen to appeals in order to change or reject laws that make it easier for women to have abortions. For example, Stern states that is proceeding to listen to a case originating from Louisiana known as June Medical Services v. Gee, a case that will make the wait time to become longer than it is now. He explains that this case will make it harder for women to get abortions because they may have to wait longer than the required time constraint they have and be denied the right to get an abortion. If laws such as this one is seen as constitutional, the states will have a way to justify that abortions are illegal. with this, Roe v. Wade will become a thing of the past.
The content of the article helped me understand what the court system may do to change abortion laws, but it also helped me realize how people see these changes. The article received both positive and negative comments from the audience. The people for the law change argue that abortions are invasive, the babies have no say in the matter, that there can be serious problems after the abortion, and that the procedure is murder. According to “hopleyyeaton”, “The endgame is personhood. A legal heir exists from conception.” They are arguing that a baby is a person and that they should not be killed. This is the most common argument amongst this side. Personhood means being seen as person since the day of being made, and, since that day, a person should have the right to live.
The side that disagrees with June Medical Services v. Gee does not see a fetus the same way. They do not agree with the personhood argument. They argue that laws that restrict abortions will make women find illegal ways and make it more dangerous for women, that the constitution should be changed to support the female reproductive right, and that the procedure is not dangerous since it is usually done orally. This side that agree with laws that will help women get access to safe abortions in clinics. They want the woman to be the priority, not like in the past where women abortions were dangerous, sometimes fatal procedures.
I find it interesting that the side agreeing with changing abortion laws to make it harder for women to have abortions uses the risks of the procedure in their argument; however, they don’t talk about how high are the chances of having problems after having the operation or how invasive the operation is. I also find it interesting, that “hopleyyeaton”, brought up that once a baby is conceived that they are now a “legitimate heir” because it is something that the law does not specify. The law does not specify when a baby should be seen as a person, but this side sees it as since the day the egg combines with the sperm.
Most of the black and white argument from this side leave out the possibilities that the women may have severe complications in the pregnancy and that the only way to save her is through abortion. It also leaves out the fact that these pregnancies may be a result of rape or incest. No one discusses what would happen in these cases and what the procedure would be if the women are further down the line in their pregnancy and in dire need of an abortion. Would the pro-abortion people see this as not killing a person, and would the con-abortion people see this as necessary? Where would be the cut-off point if a person is being reasonable, not trying to completely destroy a woman’s chance to get an abortion?
Overall, there is a lot of controversy with the topic of abortions and there are many ways that abortions can be made to be seen as pure evil if the facts are twisted out of context. I will continue to research this topic. Even though I now know the general arguments of the people in the U.S. for abortions, I want to know more about how other countries argue against or for it, and if the court systems in other countries are currently deciding on laws similar to the one being presented in June Medical Services v. Gee.
