Politics in America have an effect on people that causes a lot of people to get

fired up and let their emotions dictate their stance rather than using logical
reasoning. One topic that has recently been heavily debated on is abortion. The
fight between pro-life and pro-choice advocates has gone on for years since the Roe
v. Wade case that legalized first trimester abortions in 1973. Abortion should be
something that is safe and accessible to all women and not something that is so
often condemned.
Both sides of the issue argue at which point life starts and this disagreement
is what leads to women not being able to have a choice for their own bodies. The
author of Tiny Humans argues that life starts at conception and that abortion kills
an innocent child and supports this claim with a picture that shows the growth of a
zygote to a fetus during a pregnancy and states that Human characteristics start to
become noticeable at 2 months. Surprisingly, over a certain period of time a fetus
starts to resemble its species but that resemblance shouldnt dictate if a woman can
or cannot have an abortion. It is important to consider that the argument that life
starts at conception is usually used by religious groups. This is significant because
America is meant to be a secular country and that means that it is unconstitutional
to deny women reproductive right because of someone elses religion.
Pro-life advocates also dont realize how much damage they really cause to a
woman who is going through an unwanted pregnancy. The author of Tiny Humans
sites a source that states that strict abortion laws do not cause D.I.Y abortions to go
up, however, this is false. According to both The New York Times and NARAL there is
a significant link between the two. For example, Texas is one of the most hostile
states to attack abortion and they are 10% or more above the average rate for
googling phrases like home abortion methods. In comparison, a supportive state
like California has a rate of more than 10% below the average googling.
(TheNewYorkTimes.com) A problem with the authors source could possibly be that
they received the information from Kentuckys virtual library and Kentucky is hostile
towards abortion so it most likely biased to the point that the author of the article
just lied to support their view. Keeping abortion accessible allows them to have safe
procedures so they dont have to resort to desperate measures that could harm the
woman. Attempts to prevent abortions such by forcing the woman to view an
ultrasound of the fetus before they receive the procedure. The author of Tiny
Humans sees it as a step in the right direction, but this kind of legislation keep
women away from having safe abortions and rather, doing it themselves. Laws like
this are designed to guilt trip women and make them feel like they are doing
something wrong when in fact they arent, they are just practicing their
reproductive rights they have had since 1973.
It also often ignored that human fetal tissue is important for advancement in
the medical field as a whole. Fetal tissue that is studied can be used to create
vaccines for diseases such as measles, hepatitis A & B, and small pox. The study of
fetal tissue has allowed us to become almost immune to diseases that killed millions
(historyofvaccines.org). Allowing abortion also allows advancement in medicine so
that we can keep the people healthy and avoid health epidemics. The author of
Tiny Humans also links to a satirical piece that asks is kids are such a burden, why

not eat them. This supports their argument that abortion, to them, is disgusting and
morally wrong, however, it does show that their view on abortion is slightly
exaggerated. A fetus is very different from a toddler, a fetus is an organism that is
not a life while a toddler is its own independent life. The comparison to aborting a
fetus to eating a toddler is so over the top and ridiculous that is humorous but
doesnt seem a very effective way to argue the pro-life stance.
Pro-life advocates often argue against pro-choice advocates and say that the
woman put herself into that position so she has to deal with the consequences. This
may seem like a decent argument, but put it in a different context. A person drinks
for 20 years and requires a liver transplant, they will almost immediately be placed
on the transplant list. A person who texts and drives gets into an accident and they
lose so much blood they need a transfusion and they are given the procedure right
away. However, a woman has sex and ends up with an unplanned pregnancy it is
somehow all her fault and she shouldnt be allowed to have access to a procedure
that she has a right to because she put herself in that situation. It shouldnt be
discussion if a woman should be punished for having sex because we dont question
the people who need transplants for organs they destroyed themselves. Women
have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies, not the
government.

Sites I found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diyabortion.html?_r=0
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/smallpox
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccinedevelopment