Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: Framing The Debate
by One of the most hotly contested, quasi-political debates taking place across the United States these days is between people who consider themselves “Pro-Life” and people who consider themselves “Pro-Choice.” Essentially those who consider themselves “Pro-Life” want the practice of medical abortion to be criminalized, while those on the side of “Pro-Choice” generally want abortion on demand to remain legal.
Image via Wikipedia
Abortion was legalized in 1971 after the controversial Supreme Court decision which would come to be known as “Roe v. Wade” was made. Before Roe, abortion was regulated on the state level. There are those that argue, from a strictly Constitutional perspective, that “Roe v. Wade” was an over-reach by the Federal Government, and that the power to determine whether abortion should be legal or not should have been left to the individual states.
But for the purposes of this article, we are ignoring the Constitutional argument, and instead focusing on the two sides of the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice debate.
Image via Wikipedia
Pro-Life: The argument from the Pro-Life side of the debate is pretty straight forward. Abortion is equivalent to murder. The argument follows that life, with all the rights and privileges thereof, begins at conception. Thus, an abortion performed at any period of time, from one week, to nine months and ten days into the pregnancy, is a murder and should be treated as such.
In spite of the straight-forward nature of the argument, the Pro-Life movement has chosen to focus on certain practices that are particularly gruesome. The most controversial and well-known of these practices is deemed by the Pro-Life movement as a “Partial birth abortion.” The movement has specifically sought to criminalize this procedure, though one can assume this would be a step in the direction of eventually criminalizing all abortion, at any point in time, including abortion in the case of rape or incest. I base the last statement on the logic that, if a life is granted full rights and privileges upon conception, it should not matter in how that life was conceived. The argument would follow that the conceived life had no choice in the conception process, and should not be punished, or terminated, because of it.
Pro-Choice: This is a trickier argument, more nuanced than the Pro-Life point of view. The Pro-Choice supporter needs to be able to argue that, while a fetus is technically alive upon conception, it should not be afforded all the rights and privileges of a born person. Instead, up to a certain point, the mother of the fetus should have the right to terminate the pregnancy for a variety of reasons including, but not necessarily limited to, the physical and mental health of the mother.
Image via Wikipedia
Viability: This argument would logically suggest that there must be some point at which the fetus begins to share the rights and privileges of a born being; but when this point arrives is difficult at best to determine. No one seems to be advocating for the right of mothers to be able to terminate their pregnancies up to the date of birth. This determination of viability has become a hot topic in the debate, with modern technology pushing the date of viability back earlier and earlier. This bolsters the Pro-Life side of the debate.
The Pro-Choice side argues that they are not “pro-abortion,” that in fact no one wants to see the number of abortions performed rise. The Pro-Choice position argues that, if abortion were to be made illegal, the practice would not cease. Instead it would be driven underground, and women would travel to foreign countries, or go to “back alley” doctors in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies. A popular symbol amongst the Pro-Life movement is a wire coat hanger with a circle around it and a line through it – indicating that abortion must be kept legal so that it can be safe and regulated for the women who choose an abortion.
Common Ground: This is where I think the two sides can find common ground. Everyone would like to see the number of abortions performed decline radically. Nobody is arguing that we should have more abortions.
The Silver Lining: If the two sides could come together on this common ground and work to decrease the number of abortions I believe that would be a tremendous step in unifying a nation that is divided on this particular issue.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentKatien
On September 16, 2009 at 6:16 am
Well presented and thought-provoking article.
Reverting
On September 16, 2009 at 11:39 am
Most people aren’t pro-life; they’re anti-abortion. True pro-lifers will go above and beyond to find ways to help pregnant women and babies, be it adoption, being a foster parent, giving supplies or donating money to organizations that help pregnant women, etc.
I’m especially talking about pro-life people who want to close planned parenthood, yet don’t want to open a clinic that provides women with the same income-based health screenings and prenatal care.
Earl Schmegley
On September 16, 2009 at 1:02 pm
That’s an interesting point – but not really the focus of this article. I have been thinking about advocating for a militantly pro-life policy that would involve anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-vegetarianism – in addition to outlawing abortion. I wonder how many people would go for that? Thanks for your comment!
Karen Gross
On September 16, 2009 at 7:14 pm
You did a good job of representing both sides fairly. I think you are right that both sides are well intentioned. The main difference between the two sides is the question of when a fetus becomes a human with the right to live. I am on the pro-life side – as soon as the egg meets the sperm a new life with his/her own DNA has begun.
All abortions are gruesome. Whether the fetus is torn apart with a suction currette (spelling?) or burned with saline or when premature labour is medically induced – the killing of the fetus is always gruesome. How else could a pregnancy be terminated except if the fetus growing alive inside her is killed?
Karen Gross
On September 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm
P.S. Advocates of abortion almost always use the rape argument as the justification of abortion, but we slid down that slippery slope a long time ago. Now only less than 1% of abortions are for rape victims.
Earl Schmegley
On September 17, 2009 at 1:21 am
My intention in writing this article – and I expect this to be one in a series as I attempt to hone the point – is to find common ground on an issue where there appears to be no common ground. I do believe that pro-life and pro-choice people would all ultimately like to see no abortions performed, because let’s face it, no one (except maybe real weirdos) is pro-abortion. I really do believe that if pro-life and pro-choice advocates, maybe in the political arena, or in the private sector, could work together to try and reduce the number of abortions – through whatever joint means they could work through – it would be such a brilliant testimony to the American ability to compromise and work together – to work towards a greater good even when the people working together may come at the end result from a radically different point of view. I don’t know, maybe I’m too idealistic – but I totally believe it could happen.
DeborahLawwill
On September 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Well-written, non-biased article. I must say that while I think abortion should be a last resort I believe there should only be two reasons for it: Rape and financial hardship/poverty. Why put rape victims through more trauma and why increase the growing population of “welfare babies”. If you ask me, in those two situations it’s lose-lose for both mother and child. It’s best not to put anyone through that kind of agony. It’s cruel and wrong.
Ruby Hawk
On October 2, 2009 at 7:39 pm
If the abortion is done in the very early weeks of pregnacy I have no problem with it. After it is a living breathing baby, no.
Jo Oliver
On October 14, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Earl,
Thank you for your help in the forum with my own little debate about alcohol and teens. You were of great help.
Now, I think you summed up the basis of each side of abortion. My own views are somewhat in the middle. Cases where a woman’s life are at risk, rape, and incest I do not see any logical objection to letting these women decide if they want to keep something that they had no choice in creating or would die from following through with. For ex the case where a nine yr old had a pregnancy that resulted from incest. She had an abortion and the Catholic church decided to excommunicate her and her mother. There is no justification for trying to make a NINE yr old have a baby by her own father.
S A JOHNSON
On December 12, 2009 at 1:38 am
I like your common ground and silver lining.
samuel
On December 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I just wanted anyone’s opinion on if I was in the wrong here, and what any of you guys would have done in this situation. So my wife is quite liberal and I’m more on the conservative side, and she’s about 3 months pregnant. She can’t work right now, so I’ve been forced to support her as of late. The thing is that about a week ago she started asking me if she could borrow $400, and being pretty secretive about the reason why. I soon found out that $400 was the average cost of a back alley abortion, which is ridiculous considering that she knows how vehemently pro-life I am. After refusing to give her the money and the countless hours of arguing that ensued, I ended up making a comment about how if she wanted to do something liberal with $400, she should take advantage of Obummer’s “satellite internet recovery act,” so that “instead of murdering our kid, he can have satellite internet at a smashing price!” (I linked it so you can actually see it’s about $400 in taxpayer money that our President chose to waste on this crap, aren’t I so funny hah). The messed up part is that she went and told her dad, who happens to be just as liberal as her, and who also happens to own the house that we’re renting. To make a long story short, my tenancy has been “suspended” from his house (I’m now staying at my buddy’s place until this thing blows over) and he gave her the money to get the abortion. I haven’t talked to her in almost a week, so it’s pretty safe to say that she has already gone through with it. So my question is, do you think I was being inappropriate for mocking my wife and father in law’s political ideologies, or do you think I’m being unfairly persecuted because of my relative conservatism, and the Obummer joke I made has little to nothing to do with this? I’m thinking the latter.
samuel
On December 8, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I just wanted anyone’s opinion on if I was in the wrong here, and what any of you guys would have done in this situation. So my wife is quite liberal and I’m more on the conservative side, and she’s about 3 months pregnant. She can’t work right now, so I’ve been forced to support her as of late. The thing is that about a week ago she started asking me if she could borrow $400, and being pretty secretive about the reason why. I soon found out that $400 was the average cost of a back alley abortion, which is ridiculous considering that she knows how vehemently pro-life I am. After refusing to give her the money and the countless hours of arguing that ensued, I ended up making a comment about how if she wanted to do something liberal with $400, she should take advantage of Obummer’s “satellite internet recovery act,” so that “instead of murdering our kid, he can have satellite internet at a smashing price!” (I linked it so you can actually see it’s about $400 in taxpayer money that our President chose to waste on this crap, aren’t I so funny hah). The messed up part is that she went and told her dad, who happens to be just as liberal as her, and who also happens to own the house that we’re renting. To make a long story short, my tenancy has been “suspended” from his house (I’m now staying at my buddy’s place until this thing blows over) and he gave her the money to get the abortion. I haven’t talked to her in almost a week, so it’s pretty safe to say that she has already gone through with it. So my question is, do you think I was being inappropriate for mocking my wife and father in law’s political ideologies, or do you think I’m being unfairly persecuted because of my relative conservatism, and the Obummer joke I made has little to nothing to do with this? I’m thinking the latter.