The Pros And Cons Of Abortion

Catholic hospitals are the most common religious hospitals to find throughout the entire world. Each and every one of these hospitals has a set of rules that they are allowed to use so that they may not go against the religion that they were founded upon that was given to them by the Bush Administration from the ideas that the constitution came from. Even though not everyone can agree with one another on what is right and wrong due to their religious background, this law allowed for them to not be treated with any less respect or to disable them from getting the job that they desire. However, due to the new ideas that non-religious advocates are saying about these religious ideas and the law put into place by the Bush Administration, many sheeple

(People who follow others with little to no questions in an idea) are switching their side, even though it goes against the ideals that the United States of America were founded upon. America was founded by people who did not want to be persecuted for their religion so why start now? Even though it may seem like these ideals may not be important from an overall view of the Government, it would have a lasting impact on the way religion and government interact and how they would cause one another to work. Catholic Hospitals should not be forced into giving abortions due to the negative drawbacks that occur after an abortion, the backward approach to freedom of religion, and the removal of laws.

When thinking about abortion, many forget the negative health-related drawbacks that occur in many women.

Women who undergo abortion can receive many different types of side effects, including some dealing with mental health. “In a study of teenage abortion patients... Symptoms included: self-reproach, depression, social regression, withdrawal, obsession with the need to become pregnant again, and hasty marriages” (“Post Abortion Syndrome,” 1). Even though the patient no longer has to deal with the struggles of carrying a fetus to its term, they instead have to suffer through mental illnesses that could affect them for the rest of their life. Having depression is not a positive outcome of having done what an abortion patient has done. Many people suffer from depression already and it can cause the need for counseling, drug usage, and even the full help of a family unit. The idea of becoming depressed is already a major topic on its own, but when people who have gone to counseling and have been reported as having “chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children” (“Post Abortion Syndrome,” 1), makes it so much worse. Even though these patients have the stress of having to care for another human being off of their back, they still have to deal with the side effects that are far worse than what the only benefit, short-term relief, can do for a

girl.
Along with having their mental health become worse, an abortion patient can also have physical damage to them. About sixty-eight thousand woman every year dies due to using
improper methods of aborting and five million people receive at least one permanent or non-permanent disability. (AsapSCIENCE) After already having mental disabilities, including depression, the last desire that an abortion patient needs is to be told that they have a disability or that prior to having the abortion, they could potentially die due to improper methods or even correct methods of abortion. All of these reasons, including developing depression, losing the ability to properly respond to one's own kin, the possibility of dying in the process or more likely receiving a disability, and the truly unstable state that the abortion patient could go to all lead to the conclusion that abortions are not even a good idea in the first place. Let alone make the Catholic Hospitals change how they run their hospitals.
The ideology is already loose in how abortions cause many negative outcomes, but when one person tries to change the laws put into place by the government in order to protect another person's religious beliefs, it will not go on unnoticed like in an attempt by Barack Obama and a later one by the ACLU. In that attempt, he tried to remove the law put into place by the Bush Administration stating that religious people and Hospitals can choose to opt out of certain medical practices when they go against their beliefs. When Barack Obama had tried to remove it, he received massive backlash from the majority of people and later in 2009 decided that he was not going to try and remove the law and that he was sorrowful for trying to remove it. In a separate case, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) tried to sue one of the more popular Catholic Hospital chains. In their defense, they tried to argue that the Catholic hospital did not give the women the proper attention that they needed. The case ended, however, with the Catholic Hospital chain not being sued and the ACLU is trying to sue them again for different reasons regarding abortion. In both of these cases, the Catholic Hospital system came out on top because of the need to have a country that does not force a religion to go against their belief system and because of the United States First Amendment.

The First Amendment guarantees the rights of the people so that they may be able to practice their own religion with the government and work environment not being able to judge someone solely based on what they believe in. The first settlers in the United States came to America to remove themselves from religious persecution that they were facing from Europe. If the Government were to take away the idea that no one can be could be judged based off of what they believe in, then many of the current people who work in Hospitals could be out of the job. About seventy-six percent of doctors in the United States said they believe in God (Moawad). If all of these people were told that they could either start doing whatever they are told or they would have to leave the hospital, the nation would be put at a disadvantage due to the loss of many doctors. This would cause fewer patients to be treated and a massive need for doctors around the entire country.
In a paper written by two bioethicists, they use the argument that the doctor’s scope of what they can and cannot do is determined by whatever society tells them to do so (Savulescu, 1). By using this ideology, one could say that from the viewpoint of the Huns, they were right in the murdering, raping, and burning of whole villages. Even though the Huns by modern standards and the viewpoint of the majority of people nowadays is seen as being barbaric and primal. They also use the argument that since Sweden (which is seen by some as being far more advanced than other countries) does not have the same rules in place, the rules are completely unnecessary. But in their attempt to go against the law put into place by the Bush Administration, they forget to mention how Sweden has a religious population of about nineteen percent, which is far smaller than the mass majority of other countries countries (Sweden, 1).This smaller population in Sweden means that they do not need the law because many people do not need their religious values to be considered into the country’s day to day life. Another Argument used by them is that if someone is not willing to do a small portion of a field's work, they should not do it at all (Savulescu, 1). Not only is this a massive middle finger at all of those practitioners who worked hard in medical school in order to obtain a doctorate, but it also covers a tiny portion of the entire field the person works in. It would be the equivalent of telling a teacher that if she did not give out homework every day, she would be fired and replaced by someone who is willing to do whatever they tell her to do.
Even though many non-religious people believe that it is not the worst act in the world for a Catholic person or hospital to abort a child, it is one of the worst activities a person of the Catholic religion to do. In the Catholic religion, the Church is fully against abortion and is one of the main laws that they are trying to change for the betterment of the United States. In his book, Trent Horn writes about how Catholics believe that from the moment of conception, the Catholic church believes that the fetus has become a human being (Horn, 171). And because of such belief, they believe that an abortion is the equivalent to murder and forcing another human being to commit a crime is outright terrible; not only for them, but also for the people who are causing the person to commit crimes against their religious belief. This also goes along with the idea in the Catholic religion that if someone commits a sin and allows for another person to sin as well, the sin is much larger and can keep someone from going into Heaven.
The Amount of actual Cases that actually require an abortion due to the mother possibly dying is one of the lowest possibilities and is one of the lesser used arguments because of such. Many non-religious people use the argument of rape instead because the expecting mother never chose to have the child and also because of the mother possibly not being able to afford a child. This argument is a weak one, however, due to the number of impoverished families that actually take care of their children, and can make by with the amount of money that they earn. In each of those families, some have many children living in the same house with only one adult, but they still make by with what they have. If a family such as theirs could live with only making little money, surely the average person in America could afford to take care of a child, and if not give it up for adoption so that someone who will love and take care of the child will receive it and give it the proper needs it requires. With the laws now allowing gay people and others to marry and the world population being at the highest point in human history, the need for adoption is higher than ever. Also, the amount of women that actually receive an abortion that were raped is less than one percent (Lewin, 1). Meaning that majority of the women who do receive abortions receive them because of their own dumb mistake and their deciding that they want to have sex. The simple solution for the ninety-nine percent of people who want to not have the desire to receive an abortion is simple, use protection. And the even simpler solution is to not have sex at all making the possibility of having a child zero and getting rid of the need for abortions to even exist.
Even though on the surface level of making medical providers give attention to patients seems like a decent idea, it would cause a disturbance to religious people's day to day lives. Catholic Hospitals are some of the more common ones out there, but that doesn’t mean that they should be forced to do with whatever people who are not religious say. They should be allowed to continue their own practice and also be allowed to treat people who they believe are suitable for their treatment and would not ruin their chances to potentially go to the “good place.” They should also be allowed to continue their own practice or go into that field because Abortions only apply to one small aspect of what an an ob/gyn does.