Abortion is a very controversial topic and everyone has his or her own opinion. I don't
really believe in abortion and I would never have one but my opinion of abortion is if you are
against it you shouldnt have one. Abortion does kill a human child. The child may not be
very old or very well developed, but it is still a baby that needs food and water and can feel
pain and hear and see and jump up and down. I believe that abortion is actually a good idea
if the pregnancy will probably kill the mother or if the fetus is not and can never be viable
outside the womb. I have looked around to find the pro-choice arguments that I think are the
most convincing arguments for abortion and tried to answer them with my own opinion in a
way that is as convincing as the way they are presented.
             Don't teen girls need the choice of abortion though? As a teen girl I think an
abortion would be even harder for me now than if I was older. Killing a baby that has never
done anything to deserve death would make me very depressed. In addition, I think that
many girls probably feel they have no other choice. If schools and colleges provided free
childcare during school hours, girls could drop their babies off and visit between classes. I
think that if girls had more choices like this, fewer girls would have abortions. Even if
schools have no childcare, a girl living close to her mother, grandmother or even
grandfather or father might be able to leave the baby with them for the day.
             Also, there are many, many more eligible families who want to adopt a baby than
there are babies up for adoption. Abortion kills a baby that could make another family
happy.
             But isn't it going to condemn women to incompetent butchers if abortion is illegal?
Even in the current situation there are butchers. Abortion clinics do not have to comply with
the same standards as hospitals and regular clinics, so women can die from the various
complications of abortion....

Introduction
Closing
Thesis

 "Forty-six states had laws that protected the rights of the unborn child forbidding the
practice of abortion"
  Controversy has been ongoing between pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates
with trying to interpret the fourteenth amendment in terms of the unborn baby's rights
and the mother's rights.
 Pro-life tries to argue that government should be involved on legitamacy of abortions and
they try to educate women on the health risks of abortion since it has become a
dangerous "status quo."

Abortion should be made illegal since it has been known to cause dangers on women
physically, mentally, and socially and it interferes with the development and civil rights of the
unborn child.

 Due to women's mental, physical, and social well being affected as well as the child's
development and civil rights being endangered, abortion should be made illegal.
 There are other alternatives to abortion such as adoption.
 The child is NOT a disease festering inside the woman. It is a living, breathing, human
being that deseveres the right to have a life.
 It has become a dangerous "status quo" since people are taking abortion as an easy
way out of pregnancy.

First Trimester Abortion Procedures

Cases and Amendments involving Abortion

Abortion Procedures
Second Trimester Abortion Procedures

 Roe v. Wade
 Janaury 22, 1973
 Planned Parenthood v. Casey
 1992
 Hyde Amendment
 2013-2014
 In 2011 there were ninety-two state level abortion restriction laws enacted.

 First Trimester:
 Over the Counter Medications:
 Mifepristone and Misoprostol
 Surgical Procedures:
 Aspiration
 Manual Vacuum Aspiration
 Second Trimester:
  Surgical Procedures:
 Dilation and Curettage
 Dilation and Evacuation
 Induction Abortion

Against Abortion
Macie Brand
Physical Problems of Abortion
Governmental and Social Aspects of Abortion
First Trimester:
Over-the-counter medications: Specifically, mifepristone and misoprostol can “cause side-
effects such as heavy bleeding, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, heavy cramping and
vaginal bleeding" (www.fwhc.org). If the medications do not work, then surgical abortion such as
aspiration and manual vacuum aspiration will be preformed which have risks as well and if gone
wrong can lead to a blood transfusion.

 Government should be involved to review the legality of abortion

 It should be illegal except under the exceptions of the pregnancy threatening the
woman's life and if a mental disorder or physical disorder becomes life threatening when
sustaining a child.
 Pro-choice argues that making abortions illegal will violate the fourteenth amendment
and that it violates their right to privacy.
 Also, pro-choice advocates believe that educating the public about family planning and
making contraception more available are both far more effective to solving the abortion
problem.
 This can be beneficial; however, it will not stop unplanned pregnancies or "accidents"
from happening without enforcing improved abortion laws.
 Also, it does not help that some parents are against sex education.
 Pro-choice believes that abortions are mainly for those women that cannot sustain a
baby.
 Statistics show that abortions are being done for other reasons rather than protecting the
health of the women as well.

Second Trimester:
Surgical Procedures: These procedures consist of dilation and curettage, dilation and
evacuation, and induction abortion. Risks involved with these procedures are “nausea,
cramping, sweating, feeling faint, damage to the uterine lining or cervix, heavy or prolong
bleeding, and blood clots” (www.americanpregnancy.org). Also, surgical abortions increase the
risk of ectopic pregnancy which "occurs when the embryo or fertilized egg implants outside the
uterus. In 95% of cases, the embryo implants in a fallopian tube, which is why this condition is
often termed a "tubal pregnancy" (ww.epigee.com).

Child Developments:
Proving Misconception Wrong
Psychological and Emotional Effects of Abortion
Psychological problems of abortion are typically the most common in long term effects. These
effects include “Sadness, depression, guilt, anxiety, numbness, and shame are just a few of the
psychological effects common to women who have had abortions. It is now usual for post-
abortive women to experience emotional, spiritual, psychological, and physical side-effects for
decades after their abortions” (EBSCO Point of View: Counterpoint). Emotional effects include
regret, anger, sense of loneliness or isolation, loss of self confidence, insomnia or nightmares,
relationship issues, suicidal thoughts and feelings,and eating disorders
(www.americanpregnancy.org).

 First Trimester (within the first six to twelve weeks):

 lungs, intestines, a bladder, a heart that pumps blood, facial features, arms, and legs.
 Second Trimester:
 A fetus can survive outside the womb during the second trimester
 bone development, the baby can suck, fat accumulates, the baby begins to hear and
recognize sounds outside the womb, the baby's movements are recognizable, hair
develops, and fingerprints and footprints form.
 Abortions cannot be performed until week seven of pregnancy or after. Also, any sort of
genetic disability or disorder testing cannot take place until the second trimester.
Specifically, Amniocentesis cannot be preformed until fifteen to twenty weeks into
pregnancy.

Abortion as Birth Control Risks

Misconceptions of the Unborn Child

 The baby is not considered "living" within the first and second trimesters.
 Many people do not want the burden of possibly having a child with disorders,
disabilities, or diseases.

 Many women get multiple abortions along with using the morning after pill in effect as
birth control
  With the morning after pill, if the women does not take it within seventy-two hours of sex,
it already sets the baby up for abortion since the pill's birth control effects can take place
after the egg is fertilized.
 It is not healthy physically or psychologically and not a responsible approach to sex
 Can increase the risk of an ectopic pregnancies
 Can increase the risk of HIV/AIDS and PID.

Abortion should be legalized in the Philippines

This is another of my old papers back in my Political Science days. Not a very
good one. But I’ll still post it because HELL I CAN.

(Note: I plan to edit this one soon, like I’ve said, this one is not well written. I
would submit, however, that it does have some valid points.)

“One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that

by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists
obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course
of their own lives.”

— Ayn Rand [“A Last Survey — Part I”, The Ayn Rand Letter Vol.
IV, No. 2, 1975.]

“A man who takes it upon himself to prescribe how others should dispose of
their own lives – and who seeks to condemn them by law, i.e., by force, to the
drudgery of an unchosen, lifelong servitude (which, more often than not, is
beyond their economic means or capacity) – such a man has no right to pose
as a defender of rights. A man with so little concern or respect for the rights
of the individual, cannot and will not be a champion of freedom or of
capitalism.” 
— Ayn Rand, “Of Living Death“
“Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child’s proper
nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an
unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of
her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to
life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual
to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no
life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for
people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves ‘right-to-lifers.’ ”

— Leonard Peikoff (Objectivism, in the Chapter on Government)

Introduction

Abortion has been a hotly debated concern for so many years now, on legal
and moral grounds. Some nations, particularly those of the west, have
legalized it, to ensure that only proven to be safe procedures are used, and also
as and answer to such crimes as rape and its likes.  Curiously, these western
nations are almost always more advanced economically than the countries
that have a more conservative stance such our own country, the Philippines.
Although there are no international conflicts ever recorded that has been
spawned by this issue, there has been two sides in the Philippines ,one trying
to prove that abortion may be needed, in fact may be necessary for a
developing country, the other side speaks of unimaginable horrors to
humanity  abortion is capable of  once it is legalized.

Objectives:

 
 This position paper aims to prove that the Philippines, by adopting a positive
stance regarding abortion may be able to address the grave issue of health
particularly unintended pregnancies, which in turn affects the country
economically and the living standard and well-being of its citizens. The
position paper also aims at proving that once legalized, abortion is not so
damaging to the Filipino psyche as currently thought, and will show how we,
as a people, can take control of our own destiny with liberated and educated
minds, free from taboo and prejudice that has kept us in the dark for
generations.

Statement of Problem:

Groups from both sides have been trying to prove their arguments ever since.
This position paper will try to answer the major questions the issue has been
generated in modern times, namely,

1. What is abortion?
2. Why don’t the Philippines legalize it?
3. What are the risks that are involved in it?
4. Can abortion be classified as murder?
5. What are its benefits to the individual, and to the nation as a whole?

Hypothesis:

People of different cultures as diverse as ancient Southeast Asians (including

our ancestors) to modern Swedes have used it; it is a wonder why in the
present age of computers and nano technology people of our country seem to
view abortion as murder, as an abomination of humanity. So here lies a
fundamental Question: What in our age of “enlightenment” is keeping our
country from legalizing it? Most of the complications or health risks arise from
unsafe abortions; since induced abortion is banned, people will resort to other
means to achieve their ends, whatever the consequence be. As far as statistics
is concerned “in 1994 there were 400,000 abortions performed illegally in
the Philippines and 80,000 hospitalizations of women for abortion-related
complications. 12% of all maternal deaths in 1994 were due to unsafe
abortion according to the Department of Health of the Philippines. Two-
thirds of Filipino women who have abortions attempt to self-induce or seek
solutions from those who practice folk
medicine”… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines) the
only way to stop this true tragedy is by legalizing safe forms of abortion, place
an effective check-and-control system in order regulate it, for like any other
right, it must be coupled with responsibility.  Anti –abortion groups and pro-
abortion-groups, together with the government, must find a common ground
to formulate laws to enact one of the basic tenets of our constitution, to “…
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution…”
(Article II Section 12 Philippine Constitution of 1987).

Counter Argument:

            Let’s try to answer what are the key points of the anti
abortionist, and why the Philippines has a sort of stigma when it
comes to legalizing abortion. First, it stems from our own
constitution, “It (the state) shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception. …” (Article II
Section 12 Philippine Constitution of 1987). They state that the
“unborn” already has rights akin to its host or mother, such as the
right to life. To deprive an adult this right is soundly wrong; what
more someone who has not even yet seen the light of day? They
therefore conclude that abortion is no different from murder,
depriving an individual the right to exist.  They also assert that this
is a form of unjust discrimination, as a citation from Wikipedia
states: “…According to this argument, those who deny that fetuses
have a right to life do not value all human life, but instead select
arbitrary characteristics (such as particular levels of physical or
psychological development) as giving some human beings more
value or rights than others…”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate) in this criticism,
say, a woman was given the right to terminate her pregnancy on the
grounds that the fetus she carries may be unfit due to some disease
or deformation, it is pointed that by legalizing abortion we as a
people will see no difference in discriminating the old, the infirm,
the sick, even those who are less brighter since like the unborn,
they are less fit to survive. The argument also points that in such a
scenario the value of life will be so degraded, that one person’s life
may just not be the equal of another according to his/her
contribution to society, making any individual nothing more but
expendable ammunition, that his/her existence he/she will entirely
live for sole sake of the state. Our current constitution firmly
states “No person shall be deprived of life….” (Article III Section 1
Philippine constitution of 1987) meaning, no person,
notwithstanding to what strata of society he/she may belong, has
the inalienable right to live. Another argument used is the concept
of uncertainty. Wikipedia states “…According to this argument, if
it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus)
has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat
that thing as if it lacks a right to life (for example by killing it).
This would place abortion in the same moral category
as manslaughter (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life)
or certain forms of criminal negligence (if it turns out that the
fetus does not have a right to
life…”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate Arguments
in favor of the right to abortion). They say that if the fetus, though
its right to life is still a matter of dispute, it is wrong to assume that
it doesn’t have that right. We should rather, instead of denying it
even though we are uncertain of its state, must assume that it must
have that right as it is morally correct. Still another angle they use
is the possible health risks it poses to women. According to them
the procedure is unsafe physically and mentally, and carries with it
the guilt of murder of a helpless individual. True, who would, in the
right state of mind, dare stain his hand with the blood of the
innocent? Here come the most influential institutions that govern
the Filipino psyche, religion.  For example, the Catholic Church
holds that murder is one of the seven deadly sins, as recorded in
the old and new testaments of the Christian bible. Christian
doctrine, as we remember, states “thou shall not kill”… as a matter
of fact, all religions hold stigma against murder, and even the laws
of all nations consider murder as an act detrimental to success of a
state. (However, we should consider, is abortion really a form of
murder? That will be discussed in the next part of this position
paper.)

Argument (in favor of abortion):

The foremost argument used by groups in favor of abortion is the

concept of bodily rights. …”Judith Jarvis Thomson states that
even if the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible
because a woman has a right to control her own body. Thomson’s
variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a
woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a
person’s body to be used as a dialysis machine for another person
suffering from kidney failure. It is argued that just as it would be
permissible to “unplug” and thereby cause the death of the person
who is using one’s kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus
(who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one’s body against
one’s will)…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate)
Women, after all, have the right whether they would like to be a
mother or not, depending upon one’s status in life say, is a woman
financially capable, would she be able to raise a child, would she be
able to provide a future worthy of a person of dignity? And, we
should remember, no one, not even the government, can force
anyone against one’s own will, that the constitution itself is the free
will of the people being governed. A woman may choose if she can
have a fetus use her body, if she deems that she can provide for it,
and if it is safe for her to continue on with the pregnancy. …” A
fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but
is only in there by her permission. This permission may be
revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions;
permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the
woman, because it is her body — and not the fetus’s body, and
certainly not the government’s body.  To give a fetus “rights”
superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman’s right
to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the
right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated
whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called “pro-
lifers” as they are against the life of the actual human being
involved) a woman is not a breeding
pig…” (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm)  as stated,
the government, or any other institution, doesn’t own the woman’s
womb, it belong to no one but herself. Moreover, one’s right s ends
where another’s begin. The right  of the fetus to stay in its host’s
body can only be assured if the host is willing, pretty much like a
guest can only stay as long as the host welcomes him/her, or  like a
foreign  ambassador  can only stay as long as the country where
he/she is in  doesn’t proclaim him persona non  gratta.  Another is
the claim of murder. Abortion can not be equated by murder
because a fetus is not human, or to be more exact, not yet.  Why
would this be so? A human being is a distinct individual with his
/her own consciousness, however developed it may be, such as a
child, or an elderly, or a mentally challenged person. They all have
separate consciousness, and independent from everyone else. 
They can eat or sleep whenever, think whatever. In contrast to the
fetus, it can not survive away from a woman’s body, and is a part of
the woman until it is born to become a separate entity. …”Murder
is the taking of the life of another human being through
the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because
a fetus is not a human being — it is a potential human being, i.e. it
is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the
initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human
being…” (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm)  thus said,
we can’t consider a fetus a separate entity from its host, doesn’t
even have a consciousness, unlike children, who have the capability
to reason however minute. Murder applies only to a human being;
to kill a pig for consumption is not murder, or to cut a tree down
for its wood is not murder. If it applies to non-humans that will
definitely make everyone a murderer or at least an accessory to a
murder.  “…There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-
size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such
an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird.
Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its
capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear the remotest similarity
to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become
a human being–if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term
by the woman that it depends on–but it is not actually a human
being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants–but that
hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest…” (Abortion is Not
Murder: So-Called “Pro-Life Movement” is Anti-Human
by Christian
Beenfeldt  (November 11, 2006) http://www.abortionisprolife.com/
abortion-not-murder.htm) anti-abortionists claim that if it’s not
murder, then its is still deprivation, since the fetus wasn’t given the
chance to have a life of its own. Now we can ask, does a woman’s
right to live subject to the right of a fetus? Rights belong to a human
being, and not to human tissue or parts. We have the right to have
an arm or a leg amputated if the limb poses danger to our
existence, so let the woman have the right to have a pregnancy
terminated if it endangers her right to exist, or to have life lived
according to her wish.  Does abortion pose any health risk? No it
doesn’t, unless it is done with haphazard procedures or used with
nothing more but folk medicine. In fact, any medical operation is
hazardous in the hands of the inexperienced. Like taking medicine
that wasn’t prescribed, or going to a self-proclaimed healer who
claims can he can cure cancer with the use of some herbal cocktail.
World-wide statistics shows that women who had complications
are those who asked help from someone who doesn’t exactly knows
what he’s doing, that is, going to some back-alley clinic. If, abortion
is legalized, then women in this country will have access to
procedures that will not endanger their health, and can be assured
of a successful and well sanitized operation. Wikipedia states “…
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines an unsafe
abortion as being “a procedure … carried out by persons lacking
the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to
minimal medical standards, or both.”] Unsafe abortions are
sometimes known colloquially as “back-alley” abortions. They
may be performed by the woman herself, another person without
medical training, or a professional health provider operating in
sub-standard conditions. Unsafe abortion remains a public health
concern due to the higher incidence and severity of its associated
complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage,
and damage to internal organs. It is estimated that 20 million
unsafe abortions occur around the world annually and that
70,000 of these result in the woman’s death. Complications of
unsafe abortion are said to account, globally, for approximately
13% of all maternal mortalities, with regional estimates including
12% in Asia, 25% in Latin America, and 13% in sub-Saharan
Africa. Although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6
million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still
accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. Health
education, access to family planning, and improvements in health
care during and after abortion have been proposed to address this
phenomenon…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) now of
course religion is the greatest of obstacles, due to its definition of
morality. Filipinos are a religious people; it is a fact that has been
with us through the centuries. Go against the government and you
will be called a hero, to go against one’s religion and you will be
called a heretic. (Should the inquisition still be around it will thrive
in the Philippines!) but we should remember that there is a
separation of church and state, that no faith can interfere in the
governance of this country, Man should be governed by reason, and
let faith be of his own choosing, whatever he believes is true. By
acting on reason, our country should legalize abortion, because
there is no reason that says we should be bent on following faith
when we promulgate laws, but our own free will, and for the
greater good of the many. If we follow our faith in such matters, the
sense of democracy is being voided; we are nothing more but a
state that follows religious fundamentalism, which in turn gives
our Muslim brothers and all the other faiths of this land cause to be
separated from the republic. “ …The ultimate “justification” of the
“pro-life” position is religious dogma. Led by the American
Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the
movement’s basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated “from
conception as a person” created by the “action of God.” What
about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and
treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This
tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be
accepted on faith…” (Abortion is Not Murder: So-Called “Pro-Life
Movement” is Anti-Human by Christian
Beenfeldt  (November 11, 2006) http://www.abortionisprolife.com/
abortion-not-murder.htm) democracy gives us the freedom to
choose our own destiny, let a woman have the right to choose when
to become a mother, if she chooses to be one. If she chooses to
terminate a pregnancy on grounds that it will endanger her,
mentally, physically, financially, let her do so, that way we can truly
say that women have at last been emancipated in the Philippines.

 
 Conclusion:

It is therefore only right that abortion be legalized in the Philippines, it will

liberate us a people from ignorance and self righteousness, and however, if it
be ever implemented, strong check and control system should be implemented
as well. Let it be a right, but when it becomes a right responsibility must be
coupled with it. The proposed solution of this position paper would be as
follows:

1. The populace should be informed and rightly educated regarding its

procedures, its benefits, and any potential risk,
2. Let not all grounds be legal, there must be a separation between legal
and illegal forms of abortion,
3. Let there be uniform procedures throughout the country,
4. Let it be the choice of a woman depending upon conscience or religious
beliefs, if she sees it fit for her and her aspirations, if not, let no one force her
against her will, let anyone who forces her to have an abortion or not have it
be charged by the state as an affront to her person,
5. Educate the populace of birth control methods and the importance of
the family unit as the building blocks of the state,
6. Let laws be promulgated that will protect women regarding the right to
terminate pregnancies, and will enumerate when a woman can invoke the
right, and when she can not,
7. Any medical specialist who practices it must be registered and must
have license to perform such a procedure, that he/she may be subject to laws
and controls that will govern the profession.

If the anti’s, pro’s, and the government be able to find a common ground
where differences can be settled and compromise among the groups be a
possibility, and the solutions proposed be taken into consideration, we can be
assured that maternal deaths due to unsafe procedures would significantly go
down, and our population that has been booming for years will at last be
curbed. As a people, we Filipinos will at last be conscious that every individual
counts; that responsible parenthood is not a right but a responsibility. Once
abortion is legalized along with systems to check it so as to prevent its abuse,
people will realize that freedom is not true freedom unless they become
responsible for their own acts. That way we should earn for our country a
place among civilized nations of earth.