Pro/Con Arguments of Government Abortion Funding

It is hypothesized that the federal government should not fund abortions.

The basic argument of the pro-choice side is that the fetus is not yet a person with interests and rights to be protected. Opponents of abortion deal with the question primarily in religious terms, while proponents rely upon more legal arguments. The pro-choice movement defines itself by its selection of a name -- it is pro-choice, and it is the choice of the woman that is seen as paramount by the pro-choice movement. The argument rests on two essential assumptions. The first is that the fetus is not a human being. The second assumption is that only the woman can make the choice because it is her body, thus eliminating any possible governmental interference in this decision. The pro-choice movement also calls for the protection of the rights of the mother. Thus, government intervention either assisting or depriving a women of the right to having an abortion is essentially contrary to the pro-choice positio

. . .
that paid for childbirth but not for abortion, and the Court upheld the law reasoning that it did not constrain women's liberty because it placed no obstacles in the pregnant woman's path to an abortion: "As far as the Court was concerned, the legislature had not imposed its will on the woman because it left her free to find private funds to carry out her wish, though lack of private funds was the precise reason for the woman's application for government aid" (Kirk, Yudof and Franks, 1986: p. 109). In a second case, the Court refused to overturn a Congressional amendment to Medicaid legislation withholding funding not merely for elective abortions but for those held to be medically necessary as well. Thus, abortion has been found to be a constitutionally protected right, but it is also one that can be limited in various ways. Similarly, the constitution grants life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but does not guarantee happiness will be achieved. Hobgood (1991) discusses the nature of marriage and various restrictions placed on gender in our society and finds that society maintains its status quo through the promulgation an enforcement of a certain number of romantic myths about love and monogamous marriage. Men an
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Yudof Franks, Roe Wade, FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS, ABORTION INTRODUCTION, Pilgrim Press, Eleanor Haney, funding abortions, California Press, government funding, fetus human, government funding abortions, roe wade, Law Journal, Susan Davies, Davies Eleanor, haney eds cleveland, cleveland ohio, haney eds, eds cleveland, eleanor haney, pro-choice movement, eds cleveland ohio, davies eleanor haney, eleanor haney eds, press 1991,
Approximate Word count = 1336
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)