Revised annotation 4

Annotation 4             Why can’t I take abortion?

      January 22 has been seen as a depressing day by anti-abortion people in U.S, because taking abortion had been legalized in the country since 1973. It must surprise you, for we all know most of people in United States believe in Christianity. In the Bible, it sees unborn babies as children, (From Exodus 21-22: “If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child…”), and any murder is not allowed. (From Exodus 20-13: “Do not put anyone to death without cause.”) However, the country also asks freedom and fairness, how to deal with it if women want to take abortion? Which one does the law have to protect, the unborn babies or women’ dominion of body?  

      In 1970, there was a poor girl named Jane Roe in Texas. Because she had not enough money, she wanted to take abortion, but the laws in the state forbade taking abortion. As a result, she brought a suit to prevent the prosecutor from enforcing the state’s antiabortion laws. The controversial points were whether women’s right of taking abortion should belong to privacy, whether unborn babies should be protected by the constitution, and whether the antiabortion laws in Texas violate the constitution.

      Because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court announced that the antiabortion laws were violations to the constitution.

In the amendment, it said: “The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.” And the unborn babies are not included the “persons.” The opinion of the court, Blackmun, even noted that “the state imposed a great burden “upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice,” subjecting women to potential medical harms, as well as financial and emotional harms.” He believed that there would be many of women like Roe shouldering the burden after giving a birth. In 1990s, most of states tended to legalize taking abortion.

      Why taking abortion is not like removing a tumor? Because people tend to give the assumption to unborn babies, and that see them as humans. This assumption restricts women to take abortion and that also makes women stressful. Just like in the case, during the suit, Roe had no choice but to give birth and still had to give it up for adoption. People care about babies’ rights, but ignore pregnant women’ rights and force them to deliver unwanted babies. All in all, the society should give women the dominion of body, ceasing imposing restriction on them, and respect their decision.

Source: Paul Finkelman & Melvin I. Urofsky. Roe v. Wade. Retrieved (Dec 15, 2013), from http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Summary_Roe_v_Wade.pdf

Transcription 2

R: Hello everyone, I am Ruby.

E: I am Emma.

R&E: And we are going to talk about should university students take abortion.

E: And my side is to take abortion.

R: And my side is don’t take abortion

E: Hey Ruby, what are you reading?

R: I am reading Life’s Dominion.

E: Oh! But I remember this book talks about take abortion.

R: Yeah, but I just read it.

E: No, no way. Last time I told you to take abortion, haven’t you do that?

R: Of course not.

E: Why not? This book talks a lot of reason for you to take abortion.

R: Oh, maybe you can show me what you read from this book.

E: Okay, let me introduce the author to you first.

This book’s author is Ronald Drworkin. He is an American law scholar and also a philosopher.

So why do you object to abortion? Do you think taking abortion is immoral? Or very cruel? If you do, I will make you think twice. This author divided those who are opposed to abortion into two parts. The first part is derivative objection. They think, care babies’ rights. But actually is meaningless to suppose something has rights when it hasn’t had. Just take Dr. Frankenstein for example. If the doctor could make the dead body come alive, then could the stop of the experiment also be a way to take away the body’s right?

And the second part is the detached objection. They regard taking abortion as a murder and think life is so precious and sacred. But do you think it is acceptable when the pregnancy is resulted from a rape or incest? Incest means 亂倫. But most of people think it is acceptable, and they even can agree women to take abortion when the pregnancy is life-threating. However, those young girls also don’t want the children, and they also will have life difficulty. Now that life is so precious, why the former is acceptable, and the latter is guilty?

So the first thing we have to define is, is an embryo a person? Embryo means 授精卵, do you think an embryo is a person? Just think about it, and we will talk it later.

R:But on page 40, I also found the ideas of typical liberals who are against abortion. They insist that abortion is always the serious moral decision which made at least after embryos' genetic qualities established and successful embryo implantation. From that time on, abortion means eliminating a human life that has already begun.

It is not allowable to take abortion because of tedious and trivial reasons. For example, a mother takes abortion because of a long-expecting journey to Europe. Or because she wants to feel more comfortable when getting pregnant in other seasons such as fall or spring. Or she wants to have a boy, but the embryo is a girl and so on. They are all trivial and tedious excuses.

 Decision of abortion involves moral aspects. When college students contemplate on whether taking abortion or not, they should take embryos’ benefits of living and the holiness of human lives into account. Even though somebody may think an embryo is not a complete life therefore does not equip with human rights, but it is out there, just inside mother’s uterus. Therefore, it is certainly being. It deserves the basic rights to continue living which nobody can deprive of.

As a result, I think if college students can find ways to balance the economical burdens and mental pressure just like me, I think we should not give up our babies easily since abortion also makes mothers shoulder ethical burdens and social judgments. Abortion is not always the best refugee from the upcoming responsibilities.

E: okay, but in my annotation 4, it talks about taking abortion in the United States. Roe was a poor girl and she wanted to take abortion, but the laws in Texas forbade it. So, she brought the suit to the Court, and finally she won. Because of the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution said that the local government cannot deprive persons of life, liberty, or property legislative authorization. But the word “persons” does not include the unborn baby.

So my conclusion is that I think it is not proper for a young girl to have a child. Not only they will have to face the financial problem, they will also have mental stress during the pregnancy. And I think it is not fair that the stigma which those girls have to bear when they want to take abortion. If they want, we should stand their side and respect their decision. Putting the overwhelming stress on them with those unclear reasons is too cruel. Just like the Roe’s case, in the end, she still had to deliver it, she couldn’t support the child, so she still had to give it up for adoption.

So, Ruby, I think you should be positive to abortion. If the abortion can make you take having sex more seriously next time, and it could also relieve your financial problem, why don’t you just take it?

R:Ok, but you talked about an example in America. I also got an example from Malaysia. In 2010, the chief minister of Malacca, Mohammed Ali Rustam, set up the first school for pregnant girls in Malaysia. The school not only provides normal courses, it also gives students a dormitory to live in which is translated into Home of Hope. In School of Hope and Home of Hope, students can receive religious, maternity healthcare counseling, medical check-ups and skill training such as cooking and baby-caring for the preparation of being a mother and a wife in the near future. The school of hope is a great support for pregnant girls. If those girls can receive thoughtful care, nonstop education and most important of all, a shield from the outside gossip, they will have greater willingness and courage to deliver their child and to take care of them.

And Emma, remember that I told you some information few weeks ago? Article 26 of University Act was amended. And according to the rule, students can apply for temporary suspension of study. Then they have more time to earn money for their child and have more time to stay with their child. Moreover, abortion harms women’s body. If the baby in the uterus is not moved out completely or during the process of abortion, the doctor hurts the endometrium, it will lead to infertility forever. All in all, I think I won’t take your advice to take abortion.

E: Why not?

R: I still want to deliver my child.

E: Okay.

R&E: And thank for your listening!

Annotation 4

Annotation 4             Why can’t I take abortion?

      The date, 22th in January has been seen as a depressing day by anti-abortion people in U.S, because taking abortion had been legalized in the country since 1973. It must surprise you, for we all know most of people in United States believe in Christianity, and the Bible does not allow women to take abortion. But the country also asks freedom and fairness, how to deal with it if women want to take abortion? Which one does the law have to protect, the unborn babies or the right for women to do what they want to do for their bodies?

      In 1970, there was a poor girl named Jane Roe wanting to take abortion in Texas, but the laws in Texas forbade girls taking abortion. As a result, she brought suit to prevent the prosecutor from enforcing the state’s antiabortion laws. The controversial points are whether women’s right of taking abortion should belong to privacy, whether unborn babies should be protected by the constitution, and whether the antiabortion laws in Texas violate the constitution.

      Because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Court announced that the antiabortion laws were violations to the constitution.

In the amendment, it said: “The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.” And the unborn babies are not included the “persons.” The opinion of the court, Blackmun, even noted that “the state imposed a great burden “upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice,” subjecting women to potential medical harms, as well as financial and emotional harms.” He believed that there would be many of women like Roe shouldering the burden after giving a birth. From then on, most of states began to make taking abortion legal.

      Why taking abortion is not like removing a tumor? Because people tend to give the assumption to unborn babies, and that see them as humans. This assumption restricts women to take abortion and that also makes women stressful. Just like in the case, during the suit, Roe had no choice but to give birth and still had to give it up for adoption. Now that a girl still cannot support the child and has to lose it, why we enforce her to deliver the child? Will it be better to keep the pregnancy for ten months and endure the pain while delivering but still lose it? Having an unwanted child makes women more relieved? I suggest that if the unwanted and unexpected children make those women’ lives distressful, then the society should not impose the pressure on them and just let them take abortion!

     Document citation:

PAUL FINKELMAN & MELVIN I. UROFSKY, Roe v. Wade, in LANDMARK DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (2003), available in CQ ELECTRONIC LIBRARY, CQ Supreme Court Collection, http://library.cqpress.com/scc/lndmrk03-113-6441-348238

(last visited September 5, 2005). Document ID: lndmrk03-113-6441-348238.

Revised Annotation 3 Whether the fertilized ovum is a human?

Annotation3           Whether the fertilized ovum is a human?
      Why do some people disagree taking abortion? Why do they add a stigma on it? You probably think that because life is sacred and precious or that no one could take away the right for the innocent embryo to grow up. However, you should ponder that what is a life and that whether an embryo could have rights before protesting abortion strongly. The book« Life’s Dominion» which is written by Ronald Dworkin, pointed out many questions about taking abortion.
      Ronald Dworkin is a law scholar and also a philosopher. He devoted himself to interpreting law and morality, and he wanted to find a way to solve the disputative issue about life by analyzing constitution, cases, and human belief. He divided those who object to taking abortion into two parts- one is derivative objection which means they think taking abortion is to deprive babies’ rights and benefits, while the other is detached objection, which means they believe that life is sacred and valuable.
From many surveys and cases, Dworkin proposed the contradiction to the two parts. First, how to define a start of a life? It depends. Some people’s answer is when the ovum got fertilized, and some people’s answer is several weeks after the ovum got fertilized. According to a public announcement of a priest of Jew, David Feldman, it said: “In Jew’s laws, an embryo is not a human. Until it quits the womb and comes to the world, it will become a human.” There is no clear and exact timing to define the start of life, how can you regard taking abortion as a murder? Women should not live in the nightmare of killing human and the stigma.
     The next problem is whether an embryo has rights. Dworkin said that: “Only if something owns, or has already had some forms of senses, and that is a kind of mental and physical body life; otherwise, it will be meaningless to suppose something has its own rights.” He even took Dr. Frankenstein for example. “If he could make the body come alive, then the stop of this experiment would be also seen as a way to take away its right. However, no one thinks that it is unfair to the body or that the body has rights. Therefore, the derivative objection is facing the contradiction.”
     Dworkin thought that detached objection could make sense, but it also faced challenges. He mentioned that people think it is acceptable for a mother to take abortion when the pregnancy is threatening her life or the pregnancy is resulted from a rape and an incest. However, if you ask a girl not to take abortion because life is precious, then is the life resulted from a rape or an incest not also precious and valuable? Why does the former have to be blame, while the latter is acceptable? Is it fair that girls who want to take abortion have to shoulder the moral stress?
     To sum up, people who object to abortion could add stigmas on it, and form an overwhelming stress to women on the basis of unclear reasons. For those young girls who do not want babies, if taking abortion could release their pressure from money and responsibility or the environment which is not prepared for the coming baby, then it is cruel and unfair that you call those pregnant women as murderers.

Source: Dworkin, R. (2002). Life’s dominion: an argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom (Ya-Ru Chen,Zhen-Ling Guo, Trans.). Republic of China: Business Weekly Publications.