Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
Abortion is a highly-debated topic in society today. People on each side of the argument have very strong views. They each make good points that are valid. But they often go so far as to harass the other side of the debate, they openly attack the people with beliefs the opposite of their own. In this particular debate, were arguing the constitutionality of banning abortion with or without an exception to the ban. This exception is regarding the health of the mother. The yes side of the argument says that it was constitutional to ban abortion outright. They believe in the constitutionality of the ban even without a clause of exception for the health of the mother. This means that even if the mother’s health is in imminent danger, even if she is in danger of dying, she still cannot get an abortion. These people believe that abortions are wrong and they don’t even condone them when continuing the pregnancy could mean the mother would die. The strengths of their argument are that they believe abortion to be murder. Technically, if you believe that a fetus is a person then yes, it is murder. They believe that all murder is wrong, even if it would save the mother. The no-argument says that this ban is wrong in itself. It needs to have an exemption to protect the well-being of the mother. They’re all for protecting the health of the mother. If the mother’s life is in imminent danger, then she should easily be able to get a legal abortion. It’s not constitutional to ban abortion outright with no clause to protect the mother.
A rational choice theory would likely explain why so many people are against these exceptions in banning abortions. They think the life of this fetus is worth more than the mother. They believe this because the fetus has a whole life ahead of them while the mother has already lived through a number of years. They make the rational choice to favor the life of the fetus over that of the mother.
The most surprising thing about this argument is how vehemently the yes side argues that abortion is murder. They believe that an abortion is a murder even if that abortion would save the life of the mother. That’s ridiculous. It’s not fair to essentially end the life of the mother just to save the fetus. You’re killing one to save the other. That’s their exact argument against abortion. They abhor abortion for killing the fetus but in these instances, it’s killing the mother. So if either way, someone will die it’s not fair to automatically favor the mother like this. I understand that the no argument believes that these exceptions in the ban are not right but I disagree. I think that the exceptions are necessary. It’s unfair to arbitrarily favor the wellbeing of the fetus over that of the mother. I think that exceptions to these abortion bans are absolutely necessary. We need to provide clauses in case the wellbeing of the mother is in danger.