New Reality
Abortion is something that has always been a hot topic and has had constant tugging and pulling on either side from both republican and democratic politicians. In fact from the beginning of this hot topic, groups have banded together to create pro-abortion and anti-abortion organizations in hope to push their movement on the U.S. government in hopes that they can change the way abortion is handled and looked at.
So where exactly do pro-choice and pro-life organizations stand on this issue?
From the pro-choice Ohio website, they state, "...being pro-choice means that you believe that women, not the government, should make their own reproductive health care decisions". Whereas pro-life supporters believe that once an egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote, that is a human life and should not be aborted because its viewed as murder.
So how do these two campaigns come into play in our governmental decisions? To simply answer this question would be; funding.
Jennifer Donnelly said in the 'New Reality' podcast, a politician can band a group to their side by using funding as their basis. A politician may make the claim to end or support funding towards abortion clinics, which will rally a large group to their support. This tactic is more often used by Republican candidates who use the idea of funding to band the pro-life supporters behind them.
This made me wonder about our current President, Donald J. Trump. We have documented evidence of Trump saying he was a pro-choice advocate. However, in our recent election he's flip-flopped on his stance on abortion. This could be that he just changed his mind over the course of his life, and that's a perfectly understandable thing to assume. On the other hand, gaining the knowledge of this political tactic Republican nominee's have used to gain a large group to support them makes me wonder if Trump did the same.
Now, how does this constant tug and pull of changing politics on abortion affect the people? When talking about the predictable toggle of pro-life to pro-choice and back again, Donnelly said, "If you go abroad and look at it from their point of views, this is a policy that's really impacting women's lives abroad, and impacting these organizations every four to eight years. They're having to completely reorganize as a result of these executive actions." I tried to look into this as I feel I don't have a strong understanding of what Donnelly was saying, however I came up short on how the change between funding and non-funding affects women abroad. I intend to speak to my teacher about this and come back and edit.
My stance on the issue has always been the same, which is women should make their own decisions for their own reproductive health care. I believe that these personal choices are just that. Personal, and one that should not be decided on from an outside source. There are many reasons as to why a woman may need an abortion. Perhaps they are a rape victim who became pregnant from the instance and don't have the means to care for the child. Or perhaps the mother is faced with the fact that she will die in childbirth, and abortion is the only way to save her life. Its a touchy subject, and I realize that some women who get an abortion are only doing so because it is an unwanted consequence to a past action. I personally don't believe that abortion should be viewed as an easy way out of a sticky situation. I just feel that for the women who may need abortion for practical reasons such as being raped or facing loss of life, should not be denied that medical procedure because others view it as wrong. I also have not been able to find any non-religious reasons as to not allow abortions, and our constitution is laid out that church and state should always be separate.
