The United States is an extremely diverse country filled with different types of people, and so debates on political and social issues are bound to arise. There are countless controversial issues that divide the nation, and most discussions can get particularly heated. The topic of abortion in the United States is both a political and a social issue and is highly publicized. There are countless opposing viewpoints about abortion that contribute to this tense unrest.
Anti-abortion activists, nicknamed “pro-lifers,” often base their arguments on the morality of having an abortion. These anti-abortion activists advocate for the lives of the unborn fetuses and believe that life begins at conception, thus making abortion murder. William P. Saunders, a pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls, Virginia, and former dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, argues that abortion is immoral because it is the conscious, willing destruction of human life. Saunders begins his argument with a scientific reasoning that life begins at conception.
A human being is created with their own uniqueness, the DNA genetic code attesting to this. However, Saunders quickly steers his argument onto the topic of religion, a heavily discussed influencer in the abortion debate. He discusses how God “creates and infuses a unique and immortal soul into that body” and therefore, “the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act” (Saunders, 2003). Although he acknowledges the doubts over whether an immortal soul is attached to a fetus at conception, he discusses how it is a great sin to risk murder regardless. Saunders goes on to explain his thoughts on the conundrum of pregnancies involving occurrences such as rape, incest, adolescent pregnancy, and deformed unborn fetuses. He acknowledges the tragedy behind these pregnancies, he still believes that the fetus should not be punished for being conceived and that a sacrifice must be made to “preserve human life” (Saunders, 2003). These religion-influenced beliefs are prominent among the pro-life movement and often get discussed during the politics behind abortion despite the fact that the United States declares itself a secular state.
In addition to the issue of morality, pro-lifers also strive to prohibit abortion on the belief that is is not necessary. The pro-choice movement has famously stated that even if abortion were made illegal, unsafe abortions would still occur at an alarming rate, but Raymond J. Adamek, a professor of sociology at Kent State University, believes otherwise. He references Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision in 1973 that extended women’s right to an abortion at the state’s interest, and discusses how a majority of Americans do not agree with the ruling. He explains that even though many Americans do not personally agree with abortions, they believe that “legal prohibitions would only make the problem worse,” yet a study conducted by Cynthia McKnight demonstrates that in the 32 years prior to Roe v. Wade “the average number of illegal abortions occurring annually during this period was 98,000. Although tragic, this number is less than one-tenth of the one million illegal abortions claimed by pro-choice advocates” (Adamek, 2001).
He explains that the concept of unsafe, illegal abortions was exaggerated by the pro-choice movement, and thus it is not as big of a problem as others make it out to be. He also explains that not that many women die from unsafe abortions in the first place, calling this problem a myth. Adamek references the Polish Parliament who outlawed abortion except for in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life and explains that this outlaw did not cause an increase in maternal deaths over unsafe abortions. He fails to provide information, however, on how many Polish women now struggle with life-altering conditions caused by childbirth, and how many Polish children are abused and neglected by parents that did not wish to have them.
Adamek then furthers his anti-abortion rhetoric by explaining that abortions are actually unsafe for women, and believes that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control vastly undercounts the number of women that experience abortion-related deaths. He cites investigative reporter Kevin Sherlock who “found 30-40% more abortion-related maternal deaths across the country during 1980-1989,” even though they were unreported by the CDC. Adamek concludes his article by stating that, although abortion rights grant millions of women the freedom to escape from unwanted pregnancies and hazardous childbirth complications, “many studies strongly indicate that legal abortion is neither safe nor beneficial for women” and should be outlawed (Adamek, 2001). Adamek’s sentiments resonate with a large percentage of the anti-abortion community. They believe that the suffering that women go through during unwanted pregnancies is not substantial enough to warrant them a legal escape.
Another large percentage of anti-abortion activists are conservatives who value the sanctity of life and marriage. They are typically people in familial households that want to protect children. Rachel Lu, a contributing writer to the American Conservative, Crisis, the Federalist, and the National Review, considers abortion beliefs to be a political priority when electing political candidates. As a mother herself, she explains that some pro-life women go as far as to vote for officials who have committed sexual misconduct towards women and/or children just because they are anti-abortion. Lu acknowledges that many women seek abortion because they are financially unstable or they lack sufficient networks of support. However, she states that she knows “women can simply be selfish, prioritizing personal goals over the very life of another human being” (Lu, 2018). Lu, as a mother, prioritizes the feelings of an unborn fetus over the suffering of an actual woman.
Although thousands of women suffer due to being forced to carry a child until birth, Lu, and other pro-life women, seek to remove their right to an abortion because of the few women who abuse that right. Similarly, President of the Population Research Institute Steven W. Mosher believes that abortion is an assault on life and marriage. In a viewpoint article, Mosher complains about the United Nations (UN, 2014) report on women and how their views are radical. He states that “reproductive health = sterilization campaigns” because reproductive health programs are “actually population control—reducing the birth rate by chemically or surgically disabling as many female reproductive systems as possible” (Mosher, 2014). Mosher believes that women are being influenced to have their reproductive organs mutilated through sterilization and abortion, and insinuates that no woman could just freely choose to never have children. Viewpoints such as these are also widespread among the anti-abortion movement. Conservatives are headstrong in their beliefs about family and children and believe that women having the choice to do what they want with their bodies is a personal attack on their said beliefs.
Setting aside conservative viewpoints, the most controversial segment of the abortion issue is the debate on whether or not there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Anti-abortion activists believe there is evidence that proves a correlation between the two, but abortion right activists argue that the evidence is biased and not credible. The medical director of the Magnificent Maternal Health Program Mary L. Davenport analyzes the data presented in a Chinese study published in the journal Cancer Causes & Control that, according to her, proves the link between abortion and breast cancer. The study contains a “meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with one abortion, and 76% and 89% with two and three abortions” (Davenport, 2016). Due to China’s one-child policy, abortions are extremely frequent, making these statistics that much more impactful to pro-lifers. Davenport attacks abortion-right activists for trying to cover up this evidence for their own personal gain and explains that, unlike United States officials in governmental, consumer, and professional organizations, “Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long-term effects of induced abortion” (Davenport, 2016). However, pro-choice activists explain that they are not attempting to hide evidence or deceive people, but they explain that this evidence is not reliable.
Joyce Arthur, Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, argues that this Chinese study is significantly flawed and contains “recall bias.” Arthur explains that this study was conducted through interviews of women in two categories: women with breast cancer (“cases”) and women without (“controls”). They were then asked whether or not they had had abortions, and the results were that the cases were more likely to say yes. However, Arthur does not believe these answers to be reliable because “cancer patients will be strongly motivated to remember and share their full medical history in search for answers (this is called ‘rumination bias’), while women acting as controls in a study have no stake in the outcome and so are less likely to mention past abortions” (Arthur, 2014). Arthur references another similar study conducted in the Netherlands in which correlations between abortion and breast cancer were low in regions that more openly embraced abortions, but were high in primarily Roman Catholic and conservative areas. She explains that the reason that most likely many of those Chinese women lied about their abortions is that abortion stigma is still prevalent.
The authors of the Chinese study journal article state that “the self-reported number of IA [induced abortion] will probably be underestimated, as the stigma of abortion still exists in China, especially when a woman has more than two IAs. Therefore, this underestimation will inevitably create spurious associations between IA and breast cancer, especially for more IAs” (Huang, et al, 2013). Arthur elaborates that pro-lifers using this evidence have completely disregarded that statement even though it demonstrates a clear flaw in the study’s results. The debate over this set of data is exceedingly controversial and most likely will not end as civilly as people would hope. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers each have their own opinions and it is unlikely that one side is going to change their mind, especially not over one study.
Generally speaking, based on public opinions, Republicans tend to side with anti-abortion ideals while Democrats tend to side in favor of abortion. Of course, exceptions occur on both sides, but commonly that is how the views are distributed. After the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump, the Republican Party now controls the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and practically the Supreme Court since the 2018 appointment of Republican Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave him the nicknamed “tie-breaker” position. Since the Republican Party now has tremendous governmental power, they have significant leeway in passing laws with mostly Republican-aligned ideals. President Donald Trump recently decided to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, colloquially referred to as the “global gag rule,” which disqualifies any foreign agencies that provide abortion information, advocate for abortion rights, and/or administer abortions. Isabella Lövin, deputy prime minister of Sweden, criticized Donald Trump for his decision to reduce reproductive rights. She explains that “for several decades, the Mexico City policy has been implemented by Republican presidents and abolished by Democratic presidents, so we were not surprised that President Donald Trump reintroduced it” (Lövin, 2017). Lövin elaborates that maternal mortality has significantly decreased since the 1990s, but limiting reproductive rights threatens to undo this progress. Since the United States is an influencer among other countries, the government should be supporting women and gender equality, not trying to reverse it. Lövin ends her viewpoint by posing the question “who should decide over a woman’s body, if not herself?” and explaining that for Sweden, the answer is obvious because they have a feminist government. Lövin knows that for millennia, men have tried to tell women what they can and cannot do, and reproductive rights are just another way of limiting women’s independence, and that is why abortion should be legal and accessible.
Continuing with the political controversy regarding abortion, the Republican Party has also begun attempting to instate specific restrictions on abortions. Contributing editor at Dissent and co-producer of the magazine’s Belabored podcast Michelle Chen criticized the policies that conservative lawmakers are proposing. A new abortion proposal would include “an abortion ban at the sixth week of pregnancy [which] would undercut reproductive rights by blocking people from getting an abortion before many are aware they are pregnant” (Chen, 2017). This ban is one of the harshest yet proposed and has left thousands of people frightened over its sudden appearance. Many women experience irregular periods caused by genetic circumstances, stress, and other factors, thus most do not immediately realize they are pregnant. Some women can take up to six weeks or more before they realize, which is why this proposed ban is all the more terrifying to abortion-rights advocates. A woman could be forced to carry the baby to term before even realizing they had a baby in the first place. Pro-choicers were outraged at conservative’s position that “a theoretical future human somehow deserves more sympathy than the sentient human being currently carrying the pregnancy” (Chen, 2017). As confirmed previously in the article by William P. Saunders, some conservatives believe that women should be forced to remain pregnant because the fetus did not ask to be conceived and does not deserve to be punished. However, Chen and other abortion rights advocates explain that women seeking abortions did not ask to get pregnant and do not deserve to get punished for making a mistake.
The majority of the pro-choice movement vehemently deny the claim that life begins at conception and thus abortion is murder. Sarah Jones, a staff writer at the New Republic, argues that if conservatives believe that life begins at conception, then they must advocate for women receiving the death penalty over an abortion. However, “criminal prosecution, let alone the death penalty, is further than most organized anti-abortion groups want to go. ‘Pro-life legislators and pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned,’ stated Americans United for Life” (Jones, 2018). Although some extremist groups do believe women should be hanged for seeking an abortion, the majority of anti-abortion activists do not want to actively prosecute women. This immediately offers a discrepancy. If abortion really is the murder of a child, then women must be punished for seeking one out. Jones argues that this idea of not wanting to directly punish women demonstrates that conservatives know there is a difference between abortion and murder and yet refuse to admit it.
Abortion rights advocates believe in the notion that safe and legal abortion is a human right. They believe that as citizens of the United States, women should have the freedom to govern themselves without the government telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies. The Center for Reproductive Rights explains that there are many reasons as to why women seek out abortions and why they should have the right to do so. The Center discusses how “it is widely acknowledged that in countries in which abortion is restricted by law, women seek abortions clandestinely, often under conditions that are medically unsafe and therefore life-threatening. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 21.6 million women had unsafe abortions in 2008. These unsafe abortions were responsible for the deaths of nearly 47,000 women” (“Safe and Legal Abortion,” 2011). The Center for Reproductive Rights shows that unsafe and dangerous abortions are a real problem and they prove that with statistical facts instead of speculation, unlike the previously discussed ideas of anti-abortion advocate Raymond J. Adamek. Women have the right to continue living healthily after an abortion and have the right to equality and non-discrimination. The Center for Reproductive Rights believes that “denying women access to abortion is a form of gender discrimination” because the government is regulating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies (“Safe and Legal Abortion,” 2011). Since men do not have any regulation on how they govern themselves, having regulations specifically for women is inherently discriminatory. Pro-choice activists strive to give women the right to choose for themselves because the existence of an unborn fetus will never be as important as the actual life of a person.
After analyzing narrow viewpoints on the topic of abortion, data was gathered on the American census as a whole. Two surveys conducted by Gallup were used to evaluate stances on abortion. The first survey asks “would you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?”. This graph shows people’s opinions from 2003 to 2017 and illustrates how the majority has fluctuated between pro-life and pro-choice through the years, but pro-choice has been in the majority from 2014 to 2017. Based on the social and political climate of the United States today, these close percentages make sense. However, the interesting point is the second survey which asks “Do you think having an abortion is morally acceptable or morally wrong?” Of the people interviewed, 43% believed abortion was morally acceptable, 49% believed it was morally wrong, 7% said it depends on the situation, and the rest had no opinion. Ironically enough, although a majority of people said they consider themselves pro-choice, the majority of people also said they find abortion morally wrong. This discrepancy illustrates the entire conundrum and just how divided the United States is on abortion.
