One of America’s most highly divisive and debated topics is the issue of #abortion. Both points of view cite ethical principles, whether it is a person’s right to their body or the right of an embryo to be regarded as a potential human life and be given human rights as such. 

The Heartbeat Bill places restrictions on when an abortion can be performed, setting the limit at the detection of the first heartbeat, which is usually at about the six-week mark. Pro-life supporters believe that the embryo at that point has become a separate life, independent of the mother. 

South Carolina is one of many states spearheading the Heartbeat Bill, which obligates a doctor or physician to fully inform the person planning an abortion of the potential risks of the process. This is meant to ensure that abortions are informed decisions and not made rashly. 

Those who are pro-choice say that the bill eliminates control of one’s body for women. However, there are many laws that dictate how one should treat their body and themselves. One should not discount the emotional burden of an unwanted pregnancy, especially under the circumstances of violence and rape. However, decisions regarding human life must be made only in the most informed manner and after all the woman’s options have been considered; this is what the Heartbeat Bill offers. 

Not all who are pregnant and seeking abortion are doing it as a result of such inhumane events as rape and violence. It’s a slippery slope to promote an overreaching bill legalizing abortion using rape as its major foundation. It is better to create a comprehensive bill that covers the majority of cases, but provides allowances for special cases. 

South Carolina should maintain the Heartbeat Bill, not to curtail the freedoms of women, but to give value to human life, no matter its stage in development.