My View: how the abortion ban protects the rights of a fetus

Ian Foy '21, Staff Writer

Even after almost two weeks since the Alabama abortion ban, the topic of abortion bans remains popular with the mainstream media. Although there are some things on the bill that I would have personally changed, I do agree with the overall premise of the bill.

The Alabama abortion bill basically states that doctors who perform abortions when a mother’s life is not endangered by a pregnancy will be sentenced to serious jail time. This bill also allows first trimester abortions to take place. I do agree with the fact abortions should be illegal in most cases, however I do wish that the bill also included the exceptions of abortions where the fetus is created due to rape or incest.

Now, I’ve heard many arguments from the pro-choice movement including a fetus is a parasite, no uterus no opinion, a woman should be able to choose what to do with her body and many more.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary a parasite is “an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.” By these standards, a fetus would not in fact be considered a parasite. The key words in this definition are “at the other’s expense.” Yes, there are instances where a mother’s life is in danger from a pregnancy and this is the one exception where abortion is legal in the bill passed by Alabama governor Kay Ivey.

In a report done by the Agency for Health Care Administration, out of 70,083 abortions performed, only 194 of those abortions were due to a woman’s life being in danger (0.27% of the reported abortions). So in conclusion, stating that a fetus is a parasite is not an argument that holds to be true 99.73% of the time.

The “no uterus, no opinion” argument is one that riddles me still. This argument suggests that if you are not a female, you do not have the right to an opinion on the subject of abortions. To say that a man simply cannot hold an opinion on a political issue is just absurd. If the so called “tolerant left” is so inclusive, why are only certain sexes allowed to hold opinions on certain political topics? That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.

Another argument used by pro-choice people is that a women should be able to choose what to do with her own body. Well, for starters it is not “your body.” When we talk about abortion we are talking about terminating, in other words killing, a fetus.

After 24 weeks of being in the womb, a fetus has a 60 to 70 percent chance of surviving outside of the womb according to The pro-choice movement tends to support late term abortions (28 weeks and after) as we’ve seen laws passed supporting this in states such as New York. The abortion bill recently passed in New York allows the murder of unborn babies up to the point of birth for any reason and revokes medical care for babies who are born alive after a failed abortion according to

When a women is pregnant, they have another living human being in their womb with its own unique set of DNA, with a heartbeat after 5-6 weeks, and also with the potential to have long life full of their own choices. Taking away a life like this should not be a right granted to anyone who’s not been raped, whose life is not endangered from their pregnancy, or who’s child will not be born as a product of incest.

Something I’ve seen  in the pro choice argument is the fact that they shy away from the fact that women do have the right to choose to have and not have sex (excluding the cases of rape) and the option to use birth prevention tools such as condoms or Plan B. There are many options other than abortion and a person should not be able to kill an unborn fetus when it’s an inconvenience in their life.


Read the opposing viewpoint:

My View: how the abortion ban can be detrimental to women’s health