Argumentative Essay on Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

by Ultius in Sample Work

 Hits: 43125
 More Sharing ServicesBookmark

24
Jul
43125

Abortion is one of the heaviest topics currently discussed in contemporary American politics. And it has always been
a contentious issue. Even great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle weighed in on abortion, arguing its benefits and
drawbacks in a democratic society. In context with today’s abortion laws, this sample argumentative paper highlights
why abortion should be illegal and Roe v. Wade reversed; because Ultius does not share or condone any view
regarding abortion, we have published a variety of posts that argue both sides of this topic. Whatever your needs and
political preferences are, if you would like to buy a custom essay on either side of the abortion argument for your
personal use, please give us a call today. Our essay writing services are what helped make us famous and are
trusted by thousands of students worldwide!

STOP: Why Abortion Should Be Illegal

The legality of abortion is a staple topic in contemporary political discourse. Though the Supreme Court ruled in favor
of a woman’s right to choose in its 1973 on Roe V Wade, the issue remains a contentious topic amongst a wide array
of American voters. This contention, however, is understandable and justified. This is because, while deliberating this
case, the Supreme Court failed to thoroughly perform its duties and, thus, its decision is unfounded. Due to this
failure, the decision ought to be overturned, and abortion should be federally illegal until the court does its due
diligence and produces a satisfactory and definitive ruling.

How About a Pro-Life Argument Based in Logic?

It is important to keep in mind that every right claimed by one party implies that a separate party has a corresponding
obligation to respect that right. That is to say, if Fred has a right to private property, then Joe is obliged to keep off of
it unless Fred gives him permission. However, Joe might object to this; he may insist that he too has rights that must
be respected. Joe could claim, for example, that he has a right to move around freely and go where he likes and that
Fred’s exclusive right to property infringes on his own freedom to go where he likes. It is apparent that Fred and Joe’s
respective rights are in conflict; if Joe is obliged to respect Fred’s proprietary rights, then Joe’s right to move about as
he likes will be hampered. Conversely, for Fred to respect Joe’s freedom of movement and travel, then he will have to
give up his exclusive right to private property. 
If corresponding obligations always accompany rights, and these obligations are sometimes incompatible with the
rights of other people, as is the case in the example of Fred and Joe, this gives rise to the problem of determining
which right wins out in the end. In the above example, since it is clearly impossible for both Fred and Joe to exercise
the rights they are claiming at the same time, a judge must determine which of the two competing rights is more
fundamental or deserving of respect. If it happens that the right to private property is more fundamental than the right
to travel, the latter will be limited and Fred will be justified in keeping Joe off of his land. On the other hand, if the right
to travel is found to be more fundamental, then Fred’s right to private property will be limited and Joe will be able to
travel across it if he likes. In other words, when it happens that rights conflict with one another, it is a judge’s job to
adjudicate the question of which right is more basic and rule in favor of it. 

The Right to Life is Most Important

Of all the rights that can possibly be claimed, an individual’s right to life is the most fundamental. According to legal
philosopher Henry Shoe, “rights of security and subsistence are ‘basic rights’ because they are indispensable for the
enjoyment of all other rights” (Wenar.) This means that a person’s right to life is a precondition for other rights, like
those to private property or movement; if one is not free to not be killed, then he or she can’t be free to travel to Rome
or own a car. Thus if Fred’s right to life were ever to conflict with Joe’s right to travel, Fred’s right would win out and
Joe’s right would be limited. The right to be secure in one’s life, in other words, cannot be overridden in favor of a
competing, less basic right.

With respect to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v Wade, a woman’s right to an abortion is derived from her right to
privacy. According to Chief Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion of the court, the right to privacy “is broad
enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” It is often argued by pro-life
groups that a fetus’ right to life is more fundamental than a woman’s right to privacy and that, given this, the Supreme
Court ruled in error. If this is true, then it certainly seems apparent that the findings of Roe v Wade are incorrect. In
response to this, pro-choice advocates have responded that a fetus does not have a right to life and the decision to
procure an abortion is therefore every woman’s personal choice. As can be seen, both of these arguments hinge on
different assumptions regarding whether or not a fetus has a right to life. 

Why the Supreme Court Failed

Unfortunately, this issue was never addressed during the deliberations of the Supreme Court during Roe v Wade.
The justices never ruled the question of whether or not a fetus has rights or whether or not these rights could overrule
the rights of a woman similar to the way Fred’s rights might override Joe’s. It appears, then, that the Supreme court
did not perform its due diligence, which would have required a ruling about whether or not human beings in utero
poses the same rights as other citizens. Without such a decision, it is impossible to weigh the case of the mother and
the case of the fetus against each other and, until it is determined by the Supreme Court that a fetus does not have a
right to life or that a woman’s right to privacy is more fundamental than a fetus’ right to life, the court ought to have
suspended judgment rather than make abortion legal. The court’s hasty and under-informed ruling is solid ground for
overturning the court’s decision.

In conclusion, the question of abortion is a question of rights, which are claims made by individuals which often come
into conflict with one another. The appropriate way for a court to resolve these conflicts is by determining which rights
are more fundamental than others and rule accordingly. The Supreme Court could not possibly have made this
determination since, having never ruled on the status of a fetus as a rights-bearing citizen, they could not perform an
adequate comparison of different claims in the way that Fred and Joe’s rights were compared. As such, the Supreme
Court did not consider all the relevant facts in deliberating Roe v Wade, and their hasty and under-informed ruling
more than justifies overturning the court’s decision.

Works Cited 

Wenar, Leif, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 13 (1973). Supreme Court of the US.