It is not without value for human life that one insists that an unborn child is better than a suffering child. Laws governing the practice of abortion Pro-life supporters propose that an embryo has everything required to have the same moral standing as any living human being from the moment of conception. Abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, has been the topic of much debate both in the United States and elsewhere. The decision to terminate or retain a pregnancy should be entirely up to the potential mother.
The 1973 United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade imposed a uniform framework for legislation on abortion. The decision stated that a Texas law banning abortion in all cases other than those in which the …show more content…
The pro-life advocates contend that life begins at conception. If we do not give a human being equal moral standing at this time, when do they obtain it? The scientific community recognizes that every embryo, regardless of gestation period has a chance to be a fully functioning human being. If this is the case, then we have no right to terminate this living thing simply for the comfort or peace of mind of the mother. Every human being, from conception has a right to life and to be cared for. A woman with young children who is struggling financially cannot murder a few of them with the justification that she cannot afford more than one child right now. The problem then arises when the child is actually born. Pro-life advocates are often unwilling to help and support living children in the same way that they fought for the fetus. Studies have found that children born in pro-life states have a significantly higher infant mortality rate and lower birth rate than pro-choice states (Medoff 164). One would expect that women in these pro-life states would receive significantly more prenatal care but this is not the case. Moreover, after birth there is no evidence to show that pro-life states do more for the welfare of the child. Domestic infant adoption rates are lower and willingness to assist single mothers is lower. Children are not only more likely to live in poverty and to repeat a grade but have a much higher death rate than most pro-choice states (Medoff 165). This proves that states with strong anti-abortion laws are not more concerned with child welfare, and in fact sometimes fall short of pro-choice
The 1973 United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade imposed a uniform framework for legislation on abortion. The decision stated that a Texas law banning abortion in all cases other than those in which the …show more content…
The pro-life advocates contend that life begins at conception. If we do not give a human being equal moral standing at this time, when do they obtain it? The scientific community recognizes that every embryo, regardless of gestation period has a chance to be a fully functioning human being. If this is the case, then we have no right to terminate this living thing simply for the comfort or peace of mind of the mother. Every human being, from conception has a right to life and to be cared for. A woman with young children who is struggling financially cannot murder a few of them with the justification that she cannot afford more than one child right now. The problem then arises when the child is actually born. Pro-life advocates are often unwilling to help and support living children in the same way that they fought for the fetus. Studies have found that children born in pro-life states have a significantly higher infant mortality rate and lower birth rate than pro-choice states (Medoff 164). One would expect that women in these pro-life states would receive significantly more prenatal care but this is not the case. Moreover, after birth there is no evidence to show that pro-life states do more for the welfare of the child. Domestic infant adoption rates are lower and willingness to assist single mothers is lower. Children are not only more likely to live in poverty and to repeat a grade but have a much higher death rate than most pro-choice states (Medoff 165). This proves that states with strong anti-abortion laws are not more concerned with child welfare, and in fact sometimes fall short of pro-choice