The Abortion Conflict

    Abortion is the act of terminating a fetus of a pregnant woman. Although somewhat frowned upon, it's a common practice used when the mother's health is in danger, when the pregnancy is of criminal origin, when the child's quality of life will be very poor (unacceptably so), when a person's birth control has a mechanical failure (not from their actions), when a family can't afford the child, or when either of the parents is unable to cope with raising a child. Now, each person may decide whether this act is criminal, just, good, or bad, and the extensive involvement of personal belief in the conditions on which to judge this is where all the conflict arises.
    The two sides fighting, generally are pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-choice supporters believe life and personhood begins at birth, where pro-life supporters believe life and personhood begins at conception. Pro-choice groups generally hold that abortion is okay, since the fetus becomes a person at birth. They also speak on behalf of rape and incest victims, citing that such victims need not be forced to suffer more than they were already forced to. In addition, most abortions occur in the woman's first trimester, when the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body and thus is covered under a person's right to control their body and their own futures. Pro-choice members also contend that the right to abortion is necessary for men and women to be on equal footing socially and in the workplace. For example, when a woman gets pregnant, she generally must quit work around the time of birth and spend the next 18 years (at least) raising the child. This puts her 18 years behind a man in the same situation, but if she can abort, then she can be equal. Roe v. Wade, ruling that abortion falls under her freedom to person choice in family matters, supports this in America. Then there lies the issue of illegal abortions, rates of which would rise if women can't have access to it legally. People won't stop the behavior just because it's legally regulated or prohibited, just look at every law, tax, and rule ever made.
    On the other hand, pro-life supports hold that abortion is murder, since the fetus is a person with with rights just like any other person at conception. It follows that abortions, killing the fetus, is murder, since killing another person is murder. Alongside this, pro-lifers leave the rights of the mother with her: they don't extend to anyone else. The group supports adoption, as it follows their views in that the rights to life exceed any personal rights to equality or bodily control. That being said, they claim that a person's right to control their body and to equality belongs to them before conception through birth control and abstinence, after conception the aforementioned personal rights are forfeit. In the case of when a child will have a terribly quality of life, pro-lifers still support life, condemning abortion in that it makes a statement of how handicapped people aren't worth as much as normal people. On the same note, pro-life groups believe that abortion doesn't free women. Instead they should rally for cheap childcare, flexible schedules, and maternity leave in addition to help from the state in getting back into the workforce. The differences between these two groups are massive, polar opposite in nature, flawed, and completely based in personal opinion. (Please note these are general views,  not everyone in a group will agree with all of them)
    There is another group, though, one that looks only at responsibility. For example, it is held that, if a woman has voluntary sex,  she accepts the risks of pregnancy and is responsible for raising and supporting the child, whether she likes it or not. If she used birth control methods, then she will still be responsible, but less so since she tried to avoid it. If the sex is forced, then she is not responsible at all, as she had no choice in the act. This group is focused entirely on responsibility rather than on right, wrong, or legality.
    Then there's paternal rights,  a near unknown but growing movement. Unsurprisingly, most of its support is from men while it's opposition is from women. Men claim that if they must pay for the child for eighteen years, then they should have a say. Most men view the balance as tipped toward women unfairly, but most women see it as fairly tipped. This whole issue stems from differing opinions on the man's role and contributions. If the man works full-time and helps with the home and child after work, is he not giving at least an equal share? In that case, he does deserve rights. In others, as in deadbeat dads, they don't. It all comes down to how much the father will contribute as to how extensive his rights are, but you cannot know the future, only guess it. So the mother won't know until it happens, unfortunately, which makes it very difficult to administer paternal rights in the case of abortion unless you're married or have had a child before with the partner. Also it may be the woman's body, but her choice affects more than herself.
    As I hope you all have seen, no side is flawless. Consider this question: "When does a fetus become a right-bearing human being?" If the answer is at birth, the abortion is legal and omay. If the answer is at conception, then abortion's not okay and isn't lawful, unless the woman's rights supercede the child's own rights, then it would be okay for abortion still. Also, does a mother have the right to decide the future of another? Does that right to control her own future supercede another's if their future is affected by her decisions? If a woman gets pregnant, and keeps the child against the father's wishes, she is deciding her future,  the future of the child, and the partner's future with her choice, as the man has no say. In the case of abortion the man has no such right and as such represents a legal inequality, which may or may not cause serious issues. Finally, does anyone have the right to make law their own preferences? No view represented here has been anything other than pure opinion. All have tried to better society, but your personal opinion must be tempered with actual reason and logic as to why it will better society to be that way. Forcing your view down another's throat is reminiscent not of liberty, but of oppression.