Abortion is a fundamental right that every woman should have the option to do so. Each individual woman has the right to control their own body and no one should take that right away. Even though religion is important to many people's lives, there is a reason church and state are separated. Many woman want to have abortions because they do not feel like they could raise the child safely or in a good manner.
Firstly, the insinuation that this is a matter of religious principle is invalid. This is a matter of the moral right of every human being to life that is granted at the moment of conception. On the matter of economic stability, the option for adoption is always a safe and legal alternative to the cruel murder of a defenseless child. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the mother care for a child that is fully dependent upon her.
On the topic of adoption, it is not as simple as having the baby and giving it to a family. First, the child will eventually want to know who his/her biological parent is. It is not as simple as giving the baby up and never having to deal with the baby again. The adoption process is not easy either. Many people have a hard time finding the right family for their child. Overall, adoption is not an option to abortion because it is still up to the woman to give the child up for adoption or not.
Studies have indicated that there is, in fact, a rich and prosperous "market" for adoption. It is a traditional belief that adoption is a long and difficult road for children, but that inference is a poorly justified opinion based on false pretenses. In 2001, a staggering 1.5 million kids were adopted from the United States both internally and internationally. Also with the rights of same sex marriage rapidly expanding, it is estimated that the 66k adopted annually will grow exponentially (PBS).
Even though those facts may be true, the decision for a mother to place a child up for adoption is not an easy process. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Adoption solves the problem of who will take care of the child but abortion a decision of ending an unwanted pregnancy. For example woman who get raped and do not want the constant reminder of being sexually assaulted. Overall, adoption may seem an easy fix on the outside but there are many other factors to it.
Is it not the right of every human being to be, at the very least, given a chance to live?
Suppose you were asked simply, "Would you rather live or die?" The answer should be quite clear. As the only person who the life of the child directly depends on, it is the mother's responsibility to grant her offspring that chance rather than certain death.
On the point of rape, which rarely results in pregnancy, there are many factors which could act as reminders. I question how ending life would fix it.
Rape can still end in pregnancy no matter what the circumstance and the biggest reminder of it would be the child. With the question of "Would you rather live or die?" is a false analogy. Comparing having an abortion to asking someone if they want to die have two different characteristics. An abortion is something in the moment, not a future event. When you ask a person who has lived many years of their life to either live or die, it is for future event that the person can think about.
That, exactly, is the point. The child does not get a future. There is no future nor a chance at one for an aborted baby.
As a completely parallel (in no way equal to) example to the baby being a reminder of rape, I present a theoretical yet plausible scenario. Take the horrific events that happened at the Boston Marathon attack a while ago. People who lost limbs suffered a great loss at the hands of the terrorist simply do not have the right to murder him because he is a reminder of their pain.
Again with the situation of the Boston Marathon bomber, nothing to do with abortion. Saying that you want to kill someone because they murdered many people is not related to killing a fetus because women do not have a "responsibility" to have children. Even if the woman decided to have sex she does not assume this responsibility. This does not relate because the bomber chose to kill those people, knowing fully what the consequences could be; therefore he had responsibility for his actions.
As I mentioned earlier, that was merely an analogy to say that one cannot just kill a reminder of bad things. This philosophy of, "in order to rid my burdens, I must eliminate any symbols of pain entirely," is morally wrong and, casually speaking, quite selfish.
I contend that abortion is not a viable option to avoid parenthood. While there are many scenarios in which keeping the child may not be ideal, alternatives such as adoption are present.
Is a little paperwork not worth a child's life?