yes

“Women do have a right to privacy concerning abortions as established by cases even before Roe v Wade. Griswold v Connecticut saw the Supreme Court strike down a ban on the sale or use of contraceptives to married couples as it violated their right to privacy. Eisenstadt v Baird extended the precedence set in 1965 to include contraception to unmarried couples; stating that the right to privacy as “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” In other words, the right for a women or man to use birth control should not be regulated by the government. But even if these precedences were not set, the right to abortion should always be the decision of the women as they are the ones who carry the child, should they choose, for nine months. Furthermore, they are also the ones who raise these children once out of the womb. Not the state and not the pro-lifers, and certainly not the people protesting at Planned Parenthood everyday. If the idea that a fetus’s life is more important that the choice of a women as so claimed, how come the issue of frozen eggs, frozen zygotes and embryos are not included in any of the bills passed by “Pro-Life” states? These frozen eggs, zygotes, and embryos are thrown away if not used. Is this not the equivalent of an abortion? So where is this circumstance outlined if the life of an unborn embryo is so important? This in itself shows how the issue of abortion is not the morals of the life of a fetus, but rather the rights of the female population in a patriarchy. But ultimately, I believe abortion comes done to this: it does not concern anyone other than the person who will carry and raise the child and because it is a women’s body, it should be a women’s choice. In the same way that the government does not regulate the usage of Viagra or force men to have a vasectomy, women should have the freedom to do what they choose and do it at their own discretion.”

Cynthia from New Jersey

no

“Murder is to kill an innocent human being. Abortion is to kill the fetus, and surely noone would argue for the guilt of a fetus. Thus, if a fetus is a human being, the mother has no right to kill it, no matter her circumstances. Surely it is better to be alive, even with a bad life, than to not live at all. Even in the case of rape, if a fetus is indeed a human, then abortion is wrong, since it would answer a great evil, rape, with an even greater one, murder. The only biological difference between a newborn and a fetus is the level of development. The difference between an embryo a moment after conception, and the sperm and egg a moment before, is far greater, because only after conception does the fetus have the full genetic code which determines the development of the body. Thus, the “dividing line,” before which abortion might be permitted, ought most consistently to be placed at conception, where the greatest difference exists between the fetus before and after the “dividing line.” After conception, there is no other point at which a fetus can be deemed a human, but not a human before that moment, without an arbitrary decision. Such a point would only divide based on a difference in degree, while at conception, the division is based on kind. Because of this, a fetus should be treated as a human from the moment of conception. As a human, it is guaranteed the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Abortion denies it all three of these inalienable rights. Therefore, a mother has no right to have an abortion.”

Joseph from Tennessee