When the topic of abortion is mentioned in a conversation people often that something absurd is about to be said. Either an experience someone has had, a story to share about a friend of a friend or an unfortunate tragedy. For many abortions is a very controversial topic. This conversation can be dated back to the famously known landmark decision by the US supreme court called the Roe v. Wade case. The court ruled that abortions were banned unless the procedure was needed to save the mother's life. This in turn legalized abortions for specific circumstances to come. From a liberal perspective, one can believe that a woman should always be allowed to choose what she does with her body. Others, more on the conservative spectrum chose to believe that all humans, including the unborn, have a right to life. These two different perspectives tend to make politics circling this topic a very polarized conversation surrounding women's bodies. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine On one hand someone could consider a woman's decision to get an abortion to be wrong. But they also forget that preventing safe and effective abortions can lead to even bigger problems such as illegal abortions, deaths from both women and children due to a lack of resources once the child is born, and lack of education and quality of life. I will be discussing the ethics, and opinions of both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice parties and a possible middle ground in which they could come to an understanding.
First, we will begin by discussing the pro-life perspective and the men and women fighting to protect women's welfare, and the little lives forming inside of them. It is apparent that not everyone that supports women's rights also supports a woman's right to abortion. Many pro-lifers actually believe that there are many other options before deciding on the termination of early pregnancy. They often promote that rather than looking to “getting rid of the problem” what women need are better options socially and economically. For example, access to inexpensive child care, a job or place of work that understands the needs of the mother (maternity leave), governmental support for babysitters, and someone who can help watch their baby after daycare, and after school. It also comes to my attention that they strongly believe that if governments on a national scale reduced the accessibility to abortion clinics the expecting mothers would be more interested in turning to gain support from communities and interested in carrying the fetus to term to then later put the child up for adoption. Deciding to have a child one has carried all nine months is never an easy decision but not only would it save the fetus's life but it would give another couple who cannot conceive an opportunity to become parents to a child in need and provide the child with everything their biological parents couldn't at the time of conception.
Others also argue that abortion does not liberate a woman but rather keeps women inferior to men. In a patriarchal world, a man will always get “his way” because if a man suggests his partner get an abortion after deciding he is not interested in being a father the woman would have three limiting options: to face the pregnancy on her own being the sole provider, carrying the child until birth to be put into foster care or to abort the fetus when it is not fully developed. In this scenario, a man advocating for abortion is “anti-women” since having access to abortion clinics would allow people to not take responsibility for their choices and reproductive health. Many women advocating for pro-choice might not realize that sometimes having access to safe clinics leads to another form of violence, violence towards an unborn life. this way men would have contact with women on demand and therefore the need for an abortion would be more common (in theory) ultimately encouraging the exploitation of women more.
Moreover, let's begin to look into pro-choice values and the people advocating for what some experts call “pro-reproductive rights”. In general, those who identify as pro-choice believe that every man, woman, a person has a basic human right to decide when they get to choose when they want to bring a child into this world. The reason pro-life advocates are in contention with pro-choice is that when someone expresses they are pro-choice they are acknowledging the fact that they are okay with people having the ability to opt for abortion as an alternative for an unplanned pregnancy. This means a woman could go out the next day and find a clinic that offers the service and get the procedure done discreetly even if their significant other does not fully agree with what's happening either morally or because they are interested in raising the child with or without them. Pro-choice doesn't specifically mean that someone is only supporting abortion but various other resources along with abortion. Such as sexual education to children as early as the age of nine years old, access to birth control contraceptives, and family health clinics such as Planned Parenthood.
The biggest contrasting argument pro-choice people have is that they think that a fetus is not a person from the moment the egg is inseminated by the sperm which is what makes it okay to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester, normally when the abortion would take place. Some other significant arguments for pro-choice are in cases of rape and incest and pregnancy is a result. Supporters feel that women who have been abused and put in a position where they are bearing the child of a traumatic experience should have the right to abort a child that was not conceived consensually. Also, other individuals support terminating a fetus when there are signs of the down syndrome within the fetal chromosomes. A test called Chronic Villus Sampling (CVS) can identify this disorder in the first ten to thirteen weeks of pregnancy. Some couples trying for children lean toward this option since they assume to think that this condition can significantly limit the quality of life for children once they are born. Furthermore, the supporters of pro-reproductive rights would argue that women still tend to be at the center of this complex discussion apart from men. Leaving them to be the most vulnerable and oppressed individuals. Plus the possibility of a woman being a minority or a part of the lower class economy magnifies their oppression in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. Having a child is a condition in which a woman is unable to provide or properly care for herself and the fetus sets them up for a prolonged oppression cycle. Pro-life advocates assume that there are better resources for all women out there that could help navigate these women towards choosing life. But like many women, some don't have the luxury of planning for the future or had planned their pregnancies the way they happened.
The possibility of a middle ground for both the pro-life and pro-choice parties would be one where people accept that abortions at times are frankly necessary in unique cases. Abortions that are done out for health reasons, because a mother understands the fetus's health is in critical condition, the mother is in an abusive relationship and is fearing for her life for the sake of her child, and in the case of incest and rape. Even some pro-life opposers who find themselves conflicted because of religious standpoints attempt to turn an eye to these scenarios because they understand they couldn't possibly bear the pain of enduring that kind of trauma. Statistically speaking pro-life advocates often support capital punishment which can be quite confusing considering they are not okay with cutting a zygote journey short but are “okay” with someone being executed for a crime. From a short religious perspective, the difference is the fetus is a new life that is “pure” and the person facing capital punishment is someone who has lived experiences and has chosen to have done wrong. The issue with this conversation is that there isn't quite a compromise in values. Both sides want to ultimately do what's best for either party, but what is the “best option” in the event of taking someone's life?
In conclusion, the term “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels cannot fully examine the complexity of this controversial argument regarding how men and women feel about abortion. Rather than putting people into two categories based on their religious, ethical, or economic stances, people should learn to be more respectful of their personal decision on how they choose to plan for their families. In my opinion, I think women should have the right to choose what they will do with their own bodies. There have been times when I too have questioned my stance on religion because no one should have the right to put an end to someone's life but a part of me also feels that for specific circumstances, I believe that it is necessary. The Roe v. Wade landmark decision is a great example of this since the court ruled the outlaw abortions unless necessary; necessary for scenarios where women are subjected to harm and probable death. But I guess you can say I'm on the liberal spectrum, I believe women should have access to safe medical procedures that can induce pregnancies, exposure to sexual education early on in life, and information on contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.