This semester I am taking a class called writing for advocacy. Every class we have to come in with some sort of opinion to argue. We take those opinions and write bi-weekly commentaries or editorials that we then discuss as a class.
The class is relatively small. There are four male students and two females, including myself. Despite the size and male-to-female ratio, I assumed abortion would be an obvious opinion to bring to the first class, so much so, I decided to avoid it.
After a few classes, I realized nobody was bringing it up. At first, I thought it might be because nobody wanted to go there, or maybe they thought it was too obvious of a debate. However, as I sat down to write my opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision, I realized; it’s hard.
There are so many routes to take in discussing the merits of pro-choice v. pro-life. To start, the wording of the two movements themselves is incredibly manipulative. Who is not pro-life? Furthermore, aren’t there better groups to put this label towards? What about people in the pharmaceutical industry charging prices for life-saving prescription drugs that seven percent of Americans say are unaffordable? Are they pro-life? What about people who support wars or mass-produce weapons? Instead of applying pro-life to debates where one side is legitimately trying to preserve human life, we have applied it to the side of an argument which allows non-medical professionals to dictate what medical procedures women have access to.
On the day I presented my argument in class, another student decided to tackle the topic too. His argument, pro-choice v. pro-life is a discussion about women’s autonomy, and what is or is not life so these issues should be debated instead of debating whether a woman should be able to have an abortion. It is true the pro-life and pro-choice movements represent bigger issues than abortion. However to say these issues should be debated in place of abortion, in my opinion, not only confirmed the presence of the y chromosome in his DNA, but also used a well spoken and “shocking” argument to hide an absolute lack of regard for the actual plight of a woman making the decision to have an abortion.
For me, the abortion debate is something I have spent a long time forming an opinion on, and I believe it will be ever-evolving. However, as I sat down to make my argument for a class that I then turned into an editorial, I decided that one of the most important supporting arguments of pro-choice is that abortion is a medical procedure and why, in 2022, are we letting the Supreme Court make a medical decision for half of the population?
Based on this, here is the editorial I came up with:
Do you want a person without a medical degree to decide if you should have a vasectomy or have your inflamed appendix taken out?
Most government officials, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, do not have a medical degree. A patient should prefer to have medical decisions made with a medical professional.
Supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade supports taking away a woman’s right to that preference.
Five Supreme Court justices waltzed their way into the exam rooms of women seeking an abortion. Conservatives kicked open the door.
If a woman living in Texas becomes impregnated by rape or incest, she must have the baby. If the pregnancy will be detrimental to her physical or mental health but not life-threatening, she must have the baby.
Science and religion offer different definitions of life, making division on abortion inevitable. The decision for a woman to have an abortion should be up to her and her doctor or religious or spiritual counsel, if she prefers.
The American Medical Association allows abortion in accordance with good medical practices. The Mayo Clinic offers information on medical abortion just like any other medical procedure.
Letting people without medical training make medical decisions can be harmful to patients and undermines a doctor’s authority to make decisions with patients.
Let the decision to have an abortion be up to a woman and her doctor.