In the modern-day United States, numerous moral and legal issues are causing differences in belief, thus turning the attention of advocates (or protestors) away from their own cause to that of their opponents. In a sense, personal liberation has become not so much about advocating for certain rights as much as it has become about overcoming imposed ideations of advocates on opposite sides of a moral spectrum. It has become less about making change, and more about winning an argument.
The moral issue that we will be discussing throughout this paper deals specifically with the ideations of pro-life and pro-choice activists, and whether there is any room for these two conflicting groups to see eye-to-eye. While the two terms which classify these groups are too vague to encompass all individual beliefs in regards to abortion, we will refer to “pro-life” supporters as those who oppose the concept of abortion for all intents and purposes.
Can Pro-life and Pro-choice Meet in the Middle?
For as long as civilization itself has existed, the individual’s perception of what is right and wrong has always varied. This is a concept which is applicable to the most mundane standards as well as ones which are more sensitive to an everyday person. The perspectives of whether or not public smoking should be allowed, whether the death penalty should be imposed, and the limitations of free speech (or “hate speech”, depending on which side someone is on) are all examples of issues that will likely never be addressed to the point of total resolution in our lifetime.
As such, I believe that there is very little ground for people with opposing moral standards in regards to certain issues to agree with each other on the most crucial points of their arguments. One of the most controversial topics that has plagued the United States since the 20th century is abortion, and whether it is justifiable or just plain wrong.
There are multiple perspectives on the manner, all of which vary to some extent. Those who consider themselves to be “pro-choice” are typically in favor of a woman’s right to get an abortion, whereas those who identify as “pro-life” do not support the concept. However, the specific views of both sides may not necessarily be consistent with the preconceived notions of the beliefs of these two sides. In other words, a person who identifies as “pro-choice” may believe that while a woman has a choice to decide whether she wants to abort a fetus, doing so is not an ideal choice.
Another such person might believe that the right to do this is only morally permissible under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest. Regardless of the extent of an advocate’s belief system, the amount of subjectivity that resonates with the concept of being “pro-choice” (or “pro-life” for that matter) makes it difficult for any individual to truly identify with either classification.
The same can be said for those who identify as “pro-life” as well. While many people who identify as such hold firmly onto beliefs that abortion is wrong, there are advocates who come from a place of understanding in regards to the beliefs of their opponents. A person who identifies as being “pro-life” will not be in favor of abortion as a concept. However, some individuals who identify as such may hold a more understanding point of view regarding the manner.
For example, such a person may have the same understanding of abortion being a necessity in the most dire and unpreventable circumstances. This might mean that they would only ever have an understanding of the nature of abortion if the circumstances were due to rape, incest, or threatened the mother’s life. While this is a slight deviation of pro-life ideations, it is similar to that of a pro-choice activist who fits the description of the previously given example.
Personally, I believe that the matter is too controversial and subjective to take just one stance on it. By identifying to be part of a certain group, especially in advocacy groups, a person is typically implying that they adhere to all of the ideations that this group identifies with, even though individual perspectives are always subject to some sort of variation. Moreover, there are other smaller issues that encompass the concept of abortion morality in which people who are truly invested in the matter must take some sort of stance on. These include the federal funding of the concept, the legality of it on a local (not national) basis, and the circumstances in which an abortion would be ideal, if not permissible.
There are different grounds on which arguments pertaining to the morality and legality of abortion are made. Because of this, it is difficult to justifiably identify as being part of one side without looking at the matter with objectivity. Matters which make the concept controversial include religious perspectives, the medical consequences of abortion, the lack of personal responsibility that often (but not always) results in unwanted pregnancies, and the socioeconomic effects of abortion legalization. Both sides of this matter have views that are similar to that of the other, at least in terms of individual perspectives.
Many people from the same sides will have views that may differ from that of their activist colleagues, thus nullifying any identity that they profess to have in the matter. Because of this, I believe that not only is it impossible for both sides to understand the fullest extent of their opponent’s perspective, but that of their fellow supporters as well. Since it is difficult to come to complete and total common ground in the matter, collaboration rather than opposition between both sides is necessary and practical to make any progress.
The medical practice of abortion is prepared and conducted in a way that keeps the wellbeing of the two most crucial elements in the matter: the woman and the fetus. (Cohen, 2016) Naturally, those who are put in a position to even consider having an abortion are not in such a position willingly. It is a life-changing operation which essentially invalidates the future life of a person who does not yet exist. However, women who find themselves in need of having an abortion are in such a position become pregnant against their wishes.
Regardless of whether a woman was raped, or simply didn’t use proper protection during sex, the fetus within them was not planned. It is on this basis that many pro-choice activists identify with a woman’s right to have it removed. Those who oppose this ideation are typically more concerned about the fetus than they are the woman. (Cohen, 2016) When thinking about the morality of abortion, the rights of the woman and/or fetus are often thought of first. Those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion typically do so with the notion that the fetus is not yet a person, thus justifying the act.
Religious groups and individuals who strongly oppose abortion typically do so because their perceived view of a woman’s poor choices are now resulting in the death of “human being”, despite that her pregnancy may not have occurred as a result of irresponsible choices. On the other hand, those who identify as being pro-choice believe that in most circumstances, a fetus is not technically a human being until it reaches a certain stage in its development.
This is one area in which abortion becomes more controversial, as the technicalities regarding the legality of it vary on a state-by-state basis. While some jurisdictions may or may not allow abortions to take place within them, those that do are likely to have certain standards regarding the matter. These may include the circumstances which resulted in the pregnancy in the first lace, the developmental stage of the fetus, and whether it is safer for the woman to conceive the child rather than abort it. In the case of the latter, abortion may not be possible, thus resulting in the woman either keeping her child or finding alternatives to aborting it. Alternatives are often seen as more ideal solutions by pro-life activists, and are even preferred by some who are pro-choice.
Traditionally, the need for alternatives has been embraced by those who are looking out for the best interest in the fetus more so than the woman. The right to have an abortion in modern times has been inspired by feminists and those who actively promote gender equality and female rights. (Erchull & Liss, 2013)
In this same day and age, we are seeing the feminist movement take off as well. One of the key components of this movement seems to be the right of a woman to have an abortion. In this manner, it is not so much the right of the fetus to have a chance at life as it is for the woman to not bear a child in the first place. While it is a very bold claim written from the perspective of a evidence-supported implications and opinions, Erchull and Liss (2013) argue that the right to have an abortion is empowering to women, especially during the time where they believe that they as a gender are sexualized and oppressed.
Ironically, those who participated in this study that said they enjoyed being sexualized failed to see the gender inequality or oppression that many feminists believe is taking place today. (Eurchull & Liss, 2013) This shows that abortion has become less of a matter of practicality, and more of a matter of equality and individual rights. While the authors of this study make very opinionated claims, they do touch on the psychological aspects of abortion rights in a logical manner.
At the argument for abortions right has changed over time, so has the counterargument against it. “Over the past four decades, the American pro-life movement primarily employed a fetal rights frame. Yet a growing contingent of the pro-life movement is attempting to replace fetal-centric rhetoric with a frame claiming abortion is harmful to women.” (Trumpy, 2014)
Trumpy’s study covers the motives of pro-life activists, hence the inconsistent reasoning for advocating the way that they do. As previously discussed, we have also seen this trend occur amongst the pro-choice population as well. This implies the desire of pro-life and pro-choice activists alike to win this argument more than creating change. In order to reach compromises in which both parties can accept, I believe that this mindset should be abandoned, and that the matter should be considered in terms of practicality.
Those who advocate for either side of the argument also find themselves in a position of political controversy, hence the intense, argument-prone nature of advocating for or against abortion. I believe that the reason for such intense controversy is due to the numerous aspects which relate to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. A study by Suarette and Gordon (2013) analyzes the many different factors which influence couples or women as individuals to commence with receiving an abortion.
In order to do so in a structured and peaceful manner, the authors focus more on the need for cultural change in Canada (the nation where this research was conducted) as opposed to mere legislative change. (Suarette & Gordon, 2013) They acknowledge the unfortunate circumstances behind getting an abortion, and also address the consequences of them as well.
Their study “…demonstrates that the new anti-abortion discourse aims at changing cultural values more than legislation; is explicitly framed as ‘pro-woman’; largely avoids appealing to religious grounds; and relies on a new ‘abortion-harms-women’ argument that has supplanted and transformed traditional fetal personhood arguments.
The article argues that these findings are important as they provide a more accurate account of the political discourse surrounding one of the most contentious issues in politics today and because they illustrate broader ideological patterns that are increasingly characteristic..” (Suarette & Gordon, 2013) The interesting part of this study is that it doesn’t seem to openly advocate for either side, but it does support political decision-making in the matter in terms of practicality as opposed to morality and religious standards.
In order for pro-life and pro-choice activists to achieve middle ground, the factors which make the matter stigmatizing and contentious must be disregarded. These are the ones which people will almost always maintain unless they are exposed to alternative circumstances or perspectives that have a significant impact on their opinion. Since this is not usually likely, the two sides need to present their perspectives from a point of rationality and logic, not morality and personal standards. The latter two aspects are what make any controversial matter contentious and easy to place judgement. Women who have varying perspectives on the matter come from different backgrounds in regards to establishing their opinion.
A study done by Herold, Kimport, and Cockrill (2014) indicates that women who were surveyed expressed different reasons for thinking about abortion in the way that they do. “In contrast to public discourse of abortion, private discourse was nuanced and included disclosures of multiple kinds of experiences with abortion. Participants disclosed having abortions, considering abortion as an option for past or future pregnancies, and supporting others through an abortion.” (Herold, Kimport & Cockrill, 2014)
While many of those who were surveyed have given the concept though in regards to their personal life, many have not been in a position to actually know what it takes to have one from firsthand experience. Others had only developed their opinion based on what they knew from supporting someone they knew who had an abortion.
Try as they might, actions which promote abstinence and other preventative measures to receiving an abortion (or getting pregnant in the first place) have not always worked. Teenagers are especially susceptible to facing this decision at an early age, and continue to practice sexual activity, regardless of contraceptive protection measures they may take. Since the issue preceding abortion is inevitable, those who advocate to both sides of the arguments are going to inevitable find themselves having the same argument over and over again for this reason.
Aside from the inevitability of unwanted pregnancies occurring, the amount of funding and medical resources that need to be utilized for this purpose must also be taken into account. Other aspects of the abortion issue deal with socioeconomic factors, such as which demographics are more prone to finding themselves in a position to explore abortions or alternative options as well as the effects on the medical industry and national economy.
Since neither side is in complete agreement with the other, the two sides in general naturally agree on the sensitivity of the issue, and that it is more preferable to prevent it than to commence with it. Sex education and access to contraceptives are more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies than reversing the negative consequences of it.
The rationality of preventative measures and alternatives to abortion are more effective in making social progress in this matter, as morality is a main factor in stigmatizing abortion, thus making it easy for both sides to compromise their individual beliefs in order to support a political and social problem. If the concept of abortion was incapable of receiving any middle ground in terms of perspective, it would not be such a controversial issue.
As such, I believe that morals and personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, must be omitted in the advocacy process. I believe that this will allow both sides to achieve middle ground by compromising with each other while minimizing their blind advocacy of aspects of the issue that they may either disagree with or not be knowledgeable of.
