Point-Counterpoint: The right to choose

David Coletti '13, Contributor

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Being a pro- choice individual, I am often labeled as being “pro- abortion” by others. Let me make something clear: being pro- choice is not the same as being pro- abortion. Hillary Clinton stated that, “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

As a male, I have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, especially if she has experienced traumatic events such as impregnation from rape. Now, abortion should not be used as a contraceptive; rather, it should be considered an option for a woman if she has valid arguments for obtaining the procedure; rape or pregnancy being a threat to a woman’s life are examples.

Another example is socioeconomic status. Statistics show that many of woman receiving such a procedure are teenagers. If people are so concerned about the baby’s life, is it fair for the child to grow up in an environment where the mother is clearly unsuitable to raise it? But what if the mother wanted give the child up for adoption? Sure, that’s fine, since she will only be contributing to an extremely backed- up foster-care and adoption system. If America is so concerned about producing babies, then we must make homosexuality illegal, and birth control pills illegal, and all forms of contraceptives illegal.

Women are entitled to the right of property and their body. Just because the option of abortion should be available does not mean every woman needs to get the procedure; just like having the option of gay marriage does not mean every person has to marry someone of the same- sex. And if the debate is really about the value of life, how can a country be so against the option of abortion, but so in favor of the death penalty? If “valuing life” was truly a major priority among the American people, then how come 33 states allow for the lawful execution of living civilians, but then only five states allow for equal marriage rights? Last time I checked, homosexuals are people too, and therefore deserve the dignity and value that heterosexuals receive.

If those who are “pro-life” are true champions for life, then that means that we will no longer encourage the deportation of “illegal” immigrants from this nation. And why is this? Because these immigrants are living as well and seek amnesty from our great nation. And since we are such a “pro-life” nation, then that means that we must respect the dignity of all of their lives as well.

If capitalistic America truly upheld the respect deserved to living civilians in the country, then there would be no poor, no starving, and no trouble-inclined youth in our nation. And if we as a pro-life nation are so concerned about a mother’s fetus, then how come there is no federal law that makes it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink or smoke? But the truth is, we as a nation find hypocrisy in being pro-life.

Nevertheless, we are a nation of rights and of giving minorities and the discriminated an equal voice (although as History has shown, this does take time). Are we a nation of hypocrisy, or a nation of democracy? All I know is that I am a proud supporter for women’s health and rights.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Point-Counterpoint: The right to choose