In August of 2019, the state of Missouri was hit the very controversial topic of abortion. Naturally, this situation angered most of the state. One side of the spectrum thought the abortion ban was the right thing to do, while the others thought that the availability of said abortions was a bad idea. This topic is so controversial that whatever the outcome may be; one side will be left unhappy. Maybe there is potentially room for common ground.
The sole purpose of the Missouri abortion ban was to stop the abortion of babies after the eight weeks mark. This angered people because one, it did not make exceptions for cases such as rape or incest, and two, people believed it was unfair because a woman may not be aware that she is pregnant until after the eight weeks. The abortion ban would only make exceptions for medical emergencies. This made it seem like cases such as rape and incest were not that significant.
Pro-choice groups are all about being able to make your own decisions. They believe that a woman should be able to choose if she wants to abort her baby or not. They believe that the abortion ban is unconstitutional and goes against the 14th Amendment. Pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Paul Weiss law firm filed a lawsuit on Governor Mike Parson. They said, “by imposing a ban on abortion prior to viability, the eight weeks ban violates the Plaintiffs’ patients’ rights to privacy and liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Western Free Press)
Pro-life groups are strongly against abortion. They believe that everyone has a right to life, and abortion completely contradicts that. They believe it is wrong to end a baby’s life before they even have a chance, especially when the baby cannot speak for his or her self.
There was a woman who had been pro-life basically her whole life, and she still is. Her view on the topic has not changed. Back in the 1980s, she had given her friend the money and a ride to get an abortion because she asked her to. She, later on, she was expecting twins. Every doctor she went to advised her to have an abortion, not for the fact that she and her babies were in any real danger, but because of liability. When talking about her views on abortions she said “they’re the same as when I was expecting our twins and because I had pregnancy-related tachycardia, every doctor I went to recommended that I get an abortion — not because any of the three of us was in any real danger, but because they didn’t want the medical liability. Since then, the whole hushed sanctity of “the decision between a woman and her doctor” has underwhelmed me.”(Henneberger)
A young woman, age 20, had an abortion and immediately regretted it. She wishes she had never had the abortion or even had the option to. She grew up believing that life is a gift from God. She wondered why she ever went against everything she ever believed in. She was six weeks pregnant when she had the abortion. She was counseled before her operation and the doctors made it seem like it would be something that she would forget about eventually. It has now been five months since the abortion and there is not a day that goes by that she doesn’t think about her baby. She was so upset with her decision to abort the baby that she tried to trick her boyfriend into having another baby with her. She claims that the physical pain of her pregnancy is nothing in comparison to the psychological pain she has been experiencing since her operation. This has since then turned the woman into a pro-life activist. She begs that women become more knowledgable about the process and the emotions you will experience before making your decision and choosing to get an abortion.
Maybe there is room for common ground. Pro-choice groups and pro-life groups already have one thing in common, they want a solution. Completely doing away with abortion will most likely not fix the problem as one side will stuff be left unhappy. A previously pro-choice, now pro-life woman explains her want for common ground by saying “At one point in my life I was pro-choice, but I came over to a pro-life position years ago. I’ve been there ever since. Perhaps because of my background, I think there’s a logic to the pro-choice position that deserves respect, even as we engage it critically. It is possible to disagree with people without calling them baby-killers, without believing that they are monsters or fiends. It is possible to disagree in an agreeable way. The abortion argument is essentially an argument among women. It’s been a bitter and ugly debate, and I find that embarrassing. A few years ago, quite by accident, I discovered an important piece of common ground.
Something I wrote in a conservative think-tank journal was picked up and quoted widely. I had written: ‘There is a sense of tremendous sadness and loneliness in the cry ‘a woman’s right to choose.’ No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.’ What surprised me was where it appeared: I started getting clips in the mail from friends, showing the quote featured in pro-choice publications” (Mathewes-Green, pg 31).
There could be certain qualifications added to be able to receive the abortion that could help lead to the making of common ground. Examples of this could be, there is a young lady who has accidentally gotten pregnant and she knows that she will not be able to care for the baby financially, so she tries to get an abortion. “An important common ground point is that these survey answers challenge the right-to-life groups as well. Poor women already affirm the pro-life attitudes right-to-life groups unflaggingly promote. The data show that poor women abort so often not because they lack pro-life sentiment, but because they lack the resources to be pro-life.
When asked about factors influencing their decisions about pregnancy, more than three-quarters said ‘finding adequate care’ and even more, eighty-five percent, said, ‘not having adequate finances to raise the child.’ Integrity requires that pro-life idealists also acknowledge this finding and explicitly incorporate it into their movement’s thinking and politics. It is not that the right-to-life movement has not always recognized that pro-life words must be connected with pro-life help, as the more than 70 volunteer crisis pregnancy centers show, but these centers by themselves cannot help poor women achieve the self-sufficiency required for promising to parent” (Kelley pp 8-13). The certain qualifications of obtaining an abortion could stop the women in situations like this from getting an abortion and maybe interest them in giving the baby up for adoption.
Rape victims could have the choice to abort their babies. Another example could be a rape victim who has gotten pregnant with her attacker’s baby, the pregnancy is causing her physical as well as emotional distress. “Law No. 36 of 2009 concerning Health states regulations that allow a person to have an abortion with two conditions, namely: indication of medical emergencies and pregnancy due to rape that can cause psychological trauma for rape victims. The highlight of the decriminalization of abortion is Article 75 of Law No. 36 of 2009 concerning Health, that basically abortion is prohibited, but there are exceptions, one of which is if the pregnancy is due to rape which can cause psychological trauma for rape victims” (Jurnal Wacana Hukum Dan Sains). Situations like this, where the victim is suffering greatly and is at risk for possible health problems, could be considered for an abortion. It could still be hard for the rape victim even if they choose not to abort the baby. Living with the child of your attacker would bring great amounts of psychological pain and can make living with the child unbearable.
