Introduction
Abortion is one of the most controversial and most divisive issues in the American society. The abortion debate is polarized by two sides: pro-choice and pro-life. The arguments presented by these two sides provide the rhetoric for the abortion debate. At the pro-life side, anti-abortion groups believe that personhood begins at conception. This means that abortion is recognized as practically, a murder of an unborn child. Hence, legalized abortion is seen as a serious threat to social, moral, and religious values.
On the other hand, the pro-choice movement opposes this “unfair” idea that pro-life advocates can impose their moral and behavioral standards on all women and their sexual partners. Rather, the pro-choice movement puts women’s rights at the focal point of their debate—stating that the women have the Constitutional right to decide for and have control over their body, including the right to terminated unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. In this paper, we will try to trace these arguments and answer this research question: Why has abortion been such a large social movement for pro-choice in the US and why are some people against it? To do so, this paper first describes the current status of the debate. Then, it identifies the feminist groups that have been pushing the pro-choice side as a strong social movement. It also analyzes the pro-choice and pro-life rhetoric and methods. It also plots each side’s political lobbying strategies. Finally, it summarizes how the literature review answers why pro-choice has become a large social movement in the US and why, still, some people are against it, making it a strongly divisive issue in the country.
Current Status of the Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life
Debate In the 18th and 19th centuries, abortions were illegal but only after a woman feels fetal movement, generally occurring around early second trimester. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade in 1973 established women’s constitutional right to abortion. In 1857, the American Medical Association (AMA) started campaigning against abortion at any stage of pregnancy because abortion accounted for 18% or 2,700 of childbirth-related deaths recorded during that year. In 1990s, the Supreme Court passed the states’ right to regulate abortion and from that, numerous state regulations and policies emerged. From 2000 onwards, abortion has become an even issue as it becomes a topic covering social, religious, and political arena (Beckman, 2016; Wanlund, 2014). In 2011, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related public policy provisions, 135 of which had been enacted in 36 states and more than two-thirds restrict access to abortion services (Peters, 2014). With Donald Trump as president and the Republicans controlling the Congress, it is possible that more restrictive policies will be enacted and enforced.
In the first half of 2017, more than 400 provisions aiming to limit abortion had been considered. It is recognized that the primary target of the pro-life proponents is to overturn Roe v. Wade. President Trump has expressed that he intend to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn this decision and pursue greater restrictions (Vaida 2017). In sum, in the political scene, pro-life side seems to be dominating and winning the debate. Current demographics seem to reflect the massive increase in abortion restrictions. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a continuous decrease in the total number of abortion operations since 2009. Whereas the pro-life proponents claim that the dramatic decline in abortion is a direct result of the increasing restrictions, other factors are observed to have more direct influence. For one, the decrease in abortion rates coincides with the decrease in birth rates. This contradicts the rhetoric of pro-life proponents of saving the lives of embryos.
Otherwise, some studies suggest that a more sensible explanation for the decline in abortion rates is the increased and more effective of contraceptives. Beckman (2016) cites numerous studies that attribute the decrease in abortion rates to more effective use of birth control especially those that are long-lasting and reversible methods like IUD. Aside from the abortion rates, another way through which the issue could be assessed is through public opinion. With the increased number of anti-abortion supporters in the government, it could be expected the public opinion has started leaning towards anti-abortion side. However, this may not also be the case.
According to Pew Research Center, public support in the U.S. for legal abortion remains high, with 57% saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 40% saying that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (Pew Research, 2017). In another survey by Gallup, only 29% agrees that abortion should be legal in all circumstances whereas 11% states that it should be illegal in all circumstances and 50% stating that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. As to whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, 49% consider themselves as pro-choice while 46% identify themselves as pro-life (Gullup, 2017). In sum, public opinion goes to show the pro-choice stance as a large social movement in the United States. Nevertheless, the issue remains divisive as considerable number of people is also against it.
Feminism: Reproductive Rights, Gender Equality and Social Justice
As a social movement, the pro-choice movement is strongly leaning towards feminist agenda. Beckman (2016) presents an extensive discussion of abortion as a social controversy in the United States in line with the feminist principles. Pro-abortion proponents argue that women’s empowerment covers reproductive rights and control over their bodies, which include the right to abort unwanted pregnancy. Meanwhile, the feminist groups supporting abortion as a choice cite institutionalized anti-abortion as social inequalities targeting women. They believe in a social justice system that promotes a broader social and structural reform reducing poverty and oppression of women. This system is one that educates and assists women to reach their aspirations for themselves and their families.
On the other hand, the article by Hentoff (2009) reflects the counter-argument of pro-life supporters against the feminist argument on abortion. He starts her article with an anecdote about a nine-year-old boy whose mother is a physician who performs abortion. The boy cannot understand the fetus’ evolution or the differences in the stages when abortion is performed. He simplified the process as “still killing the baby!” He also cites a book, The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment, as one of the reasons why he changed his stance regarding abortion. According to him, there is the concept of the fetus being an individual with DNA—making it distinct from everyone else’s—and therefore, having full personhood. He also quotes a famous pro-life black preacher: “There are those who argue that the women’s right to privacy is of a higher order than the right of life.
That was the premise of slavery (23).” Hentoff (2009), while acknowledging the idea that it should be the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, argues that, “To say it’s a decision you can’t make for someone else allows a life to be taken (25).” This means that in respecting the woman’s right, the society becomes responsible for the life of the unborn baby. He ends the article by insisting, “…the most fundamental human right is the right to life—for the born, the unborn, the elderly who refuse to give up on life (27).” In sum, Hentoff (2009) presents the core of anti-abortion argument against feminism: right to life for the baby exceeds that of the mother’s right to privacy and control over her body.
Even so, as the “personhood” of the fetus remains a topic for debate, there is a shift in anti-abortion argument from protecting the baby to the protection of the mother. This shift makes a more direct answer to the women empowerment movement. Peters (2014) describes a shift in anti-abortion argument which moves the social concern from the unborn child to the mother—making it a more direct feminist issue. The new brand of anti-abortion movement claims to protect women by stating that “When those babies aren’t born, that is a loss for their mothers, and that’s part of why they need a chance to live.” The feminist movement sees this as yet another patriarchal attitude which belittles the women’s capacity as moral agents. They point out that women who actively seek abortion are moral agents who are trying to shape their own future.
Women seeking abortion, at least in the United States, are not accidentally or coerced to terminate their pregnancy. Rather, their decision to terminate pregnancy is a result of a combination of factors pointing out that abortion would be the best option. There seems to be a difficulty in trusting women to make decisions about their life situations when in fact, it is these women who will be required and left responsibility to care for, feed and clothe, love and raise these children who are yet to exist (Peters, 2014). In sum, while the pro-life movement presents new ideas about how eradicating abortion can also protect women, the pro-choice movement see it otherwise because denying them with the right to abort unwanted pregnancy only burdens them. Hennessey (2013) addresses both the question on personhood of the fetus and women’s rights by challenging the pro-choice’s movement selective stance on abortion. He questions why some of the supporters of abortion play it safe by supporting only early-term abortion. He writes, “… if you’re the type of person who thinks a pregnant woman is just carrying around a clump of cells in her uterus, or that a fetus is a parasite, or that women should never be forced to give birth to babies they don’t ‘want,’ then you’re not likely to be comfortable with any limitation on access to abortion, no matter how late in the pregnancy (74).”
This sentiment echoes the statement made by the boy in Hentoff’s (2009) anecdote in his article—that the baby’s personhood in any stage of pregnancy does not make any difference. Hennessey (2013) challenges everybody to decide the extremes of abortion: complete legality or complete illegalization—no in betweens or selective circumstances. This idea also echoes that of Hentoff’s (2009) argument that the right to life is fundamental and above all other rights, despite and in spite of any circumstance.MHentoff (2009) summarizes the pro-life ideals very well. There is the idea of abortion being a “murder” and that the right of life, as a fundamental one, is to be considered first and above all else. They also hold those who support pro-choice movement responsible for the lives lost because of abortion. Similar sentiments are also expressed by Hennessey (2013).
On the other hand, Beckman (2016) and Peters (2014) agree on the feminist argument supporting pro-choice side of the abortion debate. They argue that abortion, as part of the women’s reproductive right is a needed first step towards the achievement of gender equality and wider sense of social justice. Rhetoric and Methods of Promotion Abortion’s pro-life versus pro-choice is not just a matter of opinion; it is strongly linked to court proceedings and policy making especially in terms of public health. This is why each side has its own rhetoric and method of promotion to gather increased support.
How do these movements promote their advocacies? Pickering (2003) observes that pro-abortion feminist movement promote their advocacy using feminine rhetoric of inductive reasoning. This means that they gather a pool of individual examples and then draw generalizations from these individual experiences. In this process, they combine individual experiences to establish universal claims to support and promote the pro-abortion argument. Specifically, she describes, “This principle of the women’s movement-making the personal political—is accomplished by means of a feminist method and truth and the public/private spheres of influence known as consciousness raising (3).” The discussion of Peters (2014) about the strong social stigma against women who decide to undergo abortion because of the physical or mental health condition of fetus, economic hardship, a desire to finish school, and perception of inability to parent a child make a strong case for the effective use of personal experiences to frame the pro-choice rhetoric. As for the pro-life rhetoric, religious discourse has always been its primary vehicle to preserve and advance conservative ideologies of morality. Castle (2011) describes how pro-life advocates organize for power and empowerment.
For example, she identifies that Charismatic evangelists preach of the mega-churches in television messages of denouncing former president Barack Obama as an “Anti-Christ” because of his pro-choice advocacies and branding women who obtain abortion as “baby killers.” In developing “a language of blame and shame,” anti-abortion activists cite biblical passages. Moreover, Castle (2011) also cites that the Christian Right has also raised billions of dollars to pursue state-level candidates and legislators to influence the public opinion and policymaking towards eradicating abortion. There are also more subtle ways through which pro-life conservatives promote their ideologies.
Pro-life rhetoric and post-abortion remorse can also be traced in modern literature. Gillette (2012) traces abortion rhetoric in modern literature. Works of fiction like Bad Girl acknowledges the woman’s right to determine whether or not she will continue her pregnancy but deep inside, there is the secret loathing against the wife who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Another novel is Ann Vickers wherein the mother who undergoes abortion experiences severe guilt and longing for her unborn baby. In The Mother, there is the line: “Abortions will not let you forget/ the children you got that you did not get.” Animating the fetus like a living child and portraying heroines to experience post-abortion guilt and grief are also used to justify anti-abortion laws.
According to Gillette (2012), the modern literature played a crucial role in abortion discourse during the early 20th century as it “moved abortion into the realm of social reality, shattered the medical community’s hold on abortion, and created interested publics ready and authorized to judge abortion for themselves (680).” It other words, the modern literature have become the primary channel through which pro-life advocates promote their agenda. Indeed, there was an evident shift from medical publications to literature (fiction and non-fiction) to be used as evidence to back up the pro-life and even pro-choice’s advocacies.
Politics and Policymaking
As Hennessey (2013) states, “When an issue emerges that resonates with people, the major political parties move in and take ownership of it almost immediately… defend entrenched positions and to repel attacks from the other side. It happens with such regularity…as if partisanship is as much part of our DNA… (73).” This is why politics is a crucial part of the abortion debate in the U.S. Pro-choice side is often associated to the Democrats whereas the pro-life movement is often associated with the conservative Republicans. Membership in binary political parties dictates the kind of policy that one makes or pursues about abortion.
During the presidency of Barack Obama, a Democrat, numerous public policies, especially in healthcare, tend to support pro-choice argument. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also subbed as Obamacare, is designed in a way that healthcare decisions will be discussed and made by the woman and her physician, with the least intervention from the government and employers (Wanlund, 2014). With the victory of Donald Trump, a Republican, as president, not only does Roe v Wade is in jeopardy, it is also likely that ACA will also be amended or halted altogether. As soon as he gets to the office, Trump has appointed anti-abortion political lobbyists in strategic offices. For example, he appointed a former head of the Americans United for Life as assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for Public affairs. He also put a former lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee as deputy assistant for population affairs (Vaida, 2017). In sum, these articles illustrate how pro-choice and pro-life advocacies are advanced by the binary, often polarized, political parties in the United States. Why is it a divisive issue in the U.S.?
Conclusion
In the end, this paper summarizes why abortion is such a strongly divisive issue in the United States. Despite the significant increase in the number of anti-abortion policies being implemented at the state-level and decrease of abortion rates over the last decade, public opinion remains divided when it comes to legalization of abortion. In one side, there are the pro-life proponents who value the fundamental right of life for the unborn babies regardless of the medical questions about the fetus’ personhood and religious standpoint (Hentoff, 2009; Hennessey, 2013). In another side of the debate are the feminist supporters who pushed pro-choice argument into a massive social movement by citing women’s reproductive rights, gender equality, and social justice as the rationale for abortion rights (Beckman, 2016; Peters (2014); Castle, 2011). In promoting their rhetoric, the pro-choice movement use personal experiences of real women to raise awareness and consciousness about the difficult choices and even more pressing challenges that women have to face whether or not they undergo abortion. If they do, they are subjected to heavy social stigma.
If they don’t, they experience the difficulties of raising their child amidst their perceived inability and other circumstance (Pickering, 2003; Peters (2014). On the other hand, pro-life advocates have more organized and interconnected channels in their religious discourse and even modern literature (Castle, 2011) to spread the messages of post-abortion guilt and grief (Gillette, 2012). My own personal opinion I am appalled that this is a very contarvsal issue in America. Being a women, I would hate to have someone tell me that what I can or can do when it comes to my well being and mental state in that situation. This is the hardest choice in a women’s life when not knowing if they are doing the right thing especially when religion comes into play. My mother is very religious and would be so disappointed in me if I ever got an abortion because it is considered a sin in my religion. I stand very strongly on this issue so that is why I chose it.
Lastly, the support and opposition dynamics in the abortion issue can also be explained by the fact that each side of the debate is attributed to the binary American political parties: Democrats and Republicans (Wandlund, 2014; Vaida, 2017). Overall, the dilemma between the baby’s right to life versus the mother’s individual and civil rights of feminist principles; moral values versus social justice; and the political polarization of pro-choice and pro-life movements all contribute as to why pro-choice has become a large social movement while some people still opposing it.
