Abortion is contentious topic that has engulfed the socio-political debate in policy formation and general societal expectations. Approximately 600,000 abortions are performed in the United States year, with the CDC reporting a rate of 11.3 per 1000 women. The issue has become embedded in political and ideological opinions, often creating heated situations. Democrats and liberals believe in the freedom of choice and encourage abortions, while Republicans and conservatives largely condemn abortions, making them legal with severe restrictions. This essay argues that abortions should not be publicly encouraged as it represents a serious decision for women that should be undertaken without pressure, and it is a practice that can have long-term detrimental effects for society if allowed without restriction.
Publicly encouraging abortions, let it be a person, organization, or government is creating a public discourse. Women who are considering abortion may be unwilfully pressured by such rhetoric. The majority of women know that abortion is an option and what is necessary for it. However, public encouragement creates the same level of undue pressure to fulfill it even though the woman may have doubts. As a result, this may lead to harming of her mental health later on or regret.
While this essay does not argue to outlaw abortion, it suggests that it should be limited and not publicly advertised. The issue is that if there is a open culture of abortion hypothetically, it may lead to some societal consequences. For example, young women, particularly those underage, may choose to engage in sex more freely without protection, knowing that abortion is easily available. It is full of risks in many ways. Abortion is a serious medical procedure that can have significant risks and consequences for all women of childbearing age. Finally, encouragement of abortions may cause a demographic crisis. The U.S. is already facing an increasingly aging population, while birthrates are stagnant or declining. Open abortion availability without limits will further exacerbate the situation as many more women may choose to abort rather than raise a child.
The counterargument presented by Wilkes suggests that abortion should be encouraged at most, but not banned at the very least. He argues that first, it violates the Constitutional right of the mother if there are limitations on abortions. He then proceeds to argue that by forcing mothers to have a baby, it has a detrimental impact on the lives of the mother or baby as they are either living in poverty or the child is thrown into the foster system that commonly produces delinquents and broken people. As a refute to this, these arguments are highly emotional and have no basis in logic. First, there are no federal bans on abortion just limitations for terms of the fetus, to ensure health of the mother is preserved. Second, the far-reaching logic regarding the outcome is based on the extreme. While yes, possible, it is possible that the mother can raise a child and form a strong family. Meanwhile, foster care is not necessarily horrible. Throughout history, many great people came out of foster care. How can anyone condemn and decide the fate of a human being. Abortion should be kept legal but not pressured upon young women.
Abortion remains one of those issues where consensus is difficult to find for people of various ideologies. This paper presented arguments to limit encouragement of abortions and disputed arguments by proponents of open abortion policy in the U.S. Abortion will remain legal to some extent in the U.S. given the legislative background, but the way it is approached in policy and public perception can differ. Limiting the scope of public encouragement and discussion of it is better for society in the long-term.