Good Essay About Arguing A Position: Abortion

Abortion has emerged as one of the most controversial and divisive issues that is currently being discussed and debated in contemporary politics in the United States. It has historically been a politically-divisive and contentious issue that has been debated by Plato, Aristotle, and other great philosophers who articulated their perspective on the benefits and drawbacks on abortion within a democratic society. Indeed, the legality of abortion is an important topic in political discourse in western society. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of women retaining the right to getting an abortion in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision, the issue continues to divide the American electorate. Within the context of modern laws governing abortion, Roe v. Wade should be reversed and abortion made illegal because it infringes on fundamental religious principles of the majority of Americans. Moreover, the decision made by the Supreme Court was also unfounded due to its failure to effectively perform the duties it is charged with. Pro-life arguments that surround the issue of abortion remain the only logical rationale in order to effective decide on the legality and morality of abortion within the context of modernity. Ultimately, the failure of the Supreme Court to perform its obligations and duties,
Pro-choice proponents argue that contemporary exigencies within western civilizations underscore how religions have had to adapt to changing values and ethics, which include a woman’s right to choose. Modern contexts have indeed posed a litany of challenges to religions around the globe because they force religions to adapt to shifting contexts and contingencies while also maintaining a degree of continuity. Buddhism is one example of how adaptive main religions have become in order to remain culturally relevant and meaningful. One area that exhibits this adaptability is the case of abortion, which traditionally has been outlawed or stigmatized in Buddhist countries in which Buddhism remains official state religion. Within the western tradition, religion and abortion do not amalgamate because of the central belief that abortion centers on the debate over whether abortion is considered an act of justifiable termination of life or whether it is considered an act of murder. Despite its moral questioning, abortion and Buddhist women's access to it reveals that women who are uprooted from their country of origin often have power and influence over their reproductive capacities than they had in their country of origin because individuation is more common and acceptable in the West. Globalization , which as defined the modern world during the twenty-first century, facilitated the pliability of Buddhism while also preserving continuity through the forging of an imagined community in which mutual dialogue and adaptation materialize. Buddhism, because it has been a religion based on a tradition of impermanence, renders the Buddhist identity fluid unlike western religions in which the right to life beginning at conception is paramount to morality systems.
Regardless of religious affiliation, the right to life is the most significant natural right that must be protected at all costs. An individual’s right to life indeed is a precondition to all other natural and human rights, including the right to mobility and the right to private property. If people are not free to not be murdered, it is logical that they also cannot be free to own a car or travel. As such, the right for people to be secure in their own lives cannot be overridden or superseded by a competing yet less basic and fundamental right. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, a women’s right to procure an abortion is derived from her right to privacy. This right to privacy according to the opinion of the court, is widened to encompass the decision whether or not to keep or terminate their pregnancy. Pro-life groups counter this opinion by state that a fetus does not possess a right to life or the power to make he decision to get an abortion that all women have the choice to make. Both of the arguments proffered are based on different presuppositions regarding whether or not a fetus possesses the same right to life that a woman has.
In the deliberations that took place amongst the Supreme Court justices, however, never took these issues into consideration. They never discussed whether or not a fetus possessed right or whether or not their rights superseded the rights of a woman. Such an omission when arriving at this decision suggests that the Supreme Court did not perform its duties with due diligence, as a ruling should have been made regarding whether or not human life began an conception, and whether or not humans in utero possessed the same rights as others who are far more developed. Without rendering a decision, it is difficult to weigh the case of a fetus and a case of a mother against each other Until the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether or not a fetus has or does not have a right to life, or if a woman’s right to privacy is considered more significant and fundamental than the right to life of a fetus, then the court should suspend its judgment on the issue of the legality of abortion rather than implementing the practice as a legal one. The hasty nature with which the court delivered its ruling, which was not properly informed, provides a solid premise for overturning the decision made by the Supreme Court.
It is unequivocal that the question of abortion is fundamentally a question about rights, as the claims made by individuals often conflict with others. The only fitting way on a logistical level to resolve these various conflicts is by determining which rights should be absolutely protected as more fundamental than others and rule according to those conclusions. During the 1970s, the Supreme Court did not rule on all of the issues necessary such as the stats of a fetus in utero as citizens with protected rights. The Supreme Court must take into consideration all pertinent facts when deliberating the legality of abortion, as the under-informed and hasty ruling underscores the necessity to and justify the overturning of its official decision.