The Politics of Abortion: Pro-life Vs Pro-choice
Tilahun K. (USA)
Objective: To contrast the pro-life and pro-choice proponents of abortion so as to illustrate the politics of abortion and how the controversies drive the political arena.
The abortion debate has been divided into two clearly opposing camps: pro-life and pro-choice each entrenched in its respective uncompromising positions. Abortion has become such a controversial issue manifested at elections. The participants in the abortion debate not only have firmly-fixed beliefs, but each group has a self-designated appellation that clearly reflects what they believe to be the essential issues. Although both proponents might benefit by re-conceptualizing and then reconstructing their arguments in ways that would encourage a convergence of interests and a tolerant attitude towards each other, the contention has been growing over time and its impact on the political arena has become apparent and significant. Thus, contrasting pro-life and pro-choice proponents of abortion using specific points of interest will help illustrate the magnitude of their divergence in stance and how the differences influence the politics of abortion.
The first point of difference emanates from answering the question, “When does human life begin?” The pro-life activists argue that formation of the zygote is the point at which life begins and should be respected with the same laws that apply to us all, whether we are dependent on a womb or not. Conception creates life for them (Hui screen 3). In political terms, they advocate human rights be respected to the unborn and are willing to vote for a candidate who supports this point of view. The pro-choice supporters, on the other hand, argue that there must be an evidence of a personality for a given entity to be considered human and a personality is formed when a baby has entered the world, it acts and reacts to situations, and forms opinions in that manner. It is during this time that the pro-choice supporters consider it a unique person with a unique personality. For this reason, they oppose the pro-life view and extend their opposition against pro-life candidates who ran for office at local, state and federal level.
The other source of conflict of interest is whether abortion is immoral or not. For example, in the 2004 Presidential election, abortion was at the center of the public debate as an issue of family values. For pro-lifers, abortion is immoral no matter what the circumstances in which it is done. Their moral stance is deeply rooted in religious teachings and beliefs such as God alone is the lord of life and abortion, at whatever the stage of development of the fetus, is the taking of innocent human life. Conversely, the opposition argues that abortion should be viewed as a woman must make in order to be in charge of her life. Considering pregnancy from women’s point of view, they argue that it can be very dangerous to carry a “baby” for nine months with accompanying symptoms such as extreme bloating and swelling, hemorrhoids, indigestion and irreversible weight gain. They stress that denying the right to free choice would demolish everything the women have fought for and all the respect they have gained as individuals. This implies that a pro-life candidate who considers abortion as an immoral undertaking would be unacceptable to them.
The contention gets deeper when we ask, “Isn’t abortion supposed to be a personal choice?” The pro-lifers strongly negate abortion as a personal choice. They believe that the fetus is a developing human being with intrinsic values and inviolable rights. The fetus is as much a human being as the mother and should have priority over the reproductive freedom of the woman. The pro-choice position, however, does not see the fetus as possessing rights independent of the mother, who alone has the right to decide the fate of the fetus. Their argument is grounded in the principle of self-determination, which provides the mother with freedom to make reproductive choices. Any restriction of the availability of abortion is interpreted as coercing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. The pro-choice supporters challenge the argument “fetus is an independent entity” by raising the question “If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus has a right to the woman’s body?”
(Woiceshyn 2).
Much more important and contentious point of divergence is whether there are circumstances under which abortion can be justified. For the conservative pro-lifers, abortion is not justifiable under any circumstances. For example, if a woman knows she is going to give birth to mentally retarded baby, pro-life proponents would oppose abortion as an option. They argue that it is only when we love the handicapped that we can truly value every human life. They strongly argue that any deliberate termination of embryonic or fetal life constitutes an “unjustified” termination of human life. On the contrary, since the pro-choice proponents deny that the fetus is human life, the termination of fetal life does not constitute homicide. Besides, they justify termination of fetal life by asserting that the woman has the ultimate right to control her own body and only parents have the moral responsibility and constitutional obligation to bring into this world only children who are wanted, loved, and provided for. If a child cannot be cared for properly, it should not be brought into this world. In respect to this argument, the 1973 legalization of abortion was a great break-through for this camp.
Nevertheless, whether abortion should remain legal or be outlawed is on the forefront of the debate so far. The legalization of abortion was a great loss for the pro-lifers and the fight to outlaw it has been immense mainly backed by the Catholic and Evangelical churches. For example, in early 2003, the Vatican issued a doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life such that catholic lawmakers cannot put aside church doctrine when it comes to making decisions in their capacity as elected officials (Evans and Morello 1). Rather, the document asserted that elected officials should advance church teaching on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. A recent Harris Interactive Poll also showed the strongest opposition in years to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. According to the poll, 52 percent of Americans support Roe and 47 percent do not while those figures were 57 percent and 41 percent, respectively in 1998 (Screen 1).
Yet, the pro-choice supporters argue that legalization of abortion has improved availability and access for the needy thereby contributing to a significant decline in complications. They also assert that the shift from illegal to legal abortion has increased equity between the informed well to do and the women with no information and financial capacity. They stress that today’s threat to women’s lives and health no longer comes from abortion. It comes from those who want to outlaw it through “Patriarchal governments.” Many pro-choice point out that the bible is a text of religious belief, not of public policy or law.
In conclusion, abortion has become such a divisive and controversial issue evidently influencing the political contest at various levels. At one end, we have the pro-life advocates who oppose abortion and focus on the fetus rights. They advocate that the fetus is human and should be given the same human rights as the mother. Besides, for pro-lifers, abortion is immoral and unjustifiable under any circumstances. As a result, they strongly fight and lobby to outlaw abortion by influencing the politicians. On the other end are the pro-choice supporters who see individual choice as central to the debate. As to the pro-choice proponents, the woman has the ultimate right to control her own body and no one has any right to force her carry a pregnancy that she does not want. To this effect, they relentlessly work for abortion to remain legal and be considered as the Constitutional right of the women. Their vote is earmarked to a candidate who supports their designation. One likely scenario that we can safely make on the abortion issue is, therefore, that it will continue to be a “political weapon” between the left and the right for years to come.
Works Cited
Evans, Roxanne, annd Morello, Sara. “Pro-choice Politics and Church Law: What the Catholic Anti-Abortion Lobby Does Not Want You to Know.” Conscience Spring Issue (2003): 1-5. 18 Mar. 2005 <http.www. catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archived/EvansMorello.htm>.
Harris Interactivee. “The Harris Poll.” 3 Mar. (2005). 4 Mar. 2005 <http://www. harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=547>.
Hui, Edwin. “Abortion”. Intervarsity - Ministry in Daily Life (2004). 15 Mar. 2005
<http://www.ivmdl.org/cbec.cfm?study=85>.
Woiceshyn, Glenn. “Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion Would Be a Blow to Women’s
Rights.” The Ayn Rand Institute. 24 Sep. 2003. 18 Mar. 2005
<http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7872>.