Is there a right side?
For as long as us American can remember, the issue of abortion has been commonly debated and extremely controversial. While in some cases people will verbally ‘fight to the death’ for their belief on the matter, there are others where you could simply mention the topic and immediately silence a room full of people. The issue being debated is very black and white; regarding abortion, one is expected to be either pro-life or pro-choice. Those who carry a pro-life outlook most commonly relate it to religious reasoning and insist that the procedure—no matter the circumstance—is unjustifiably immoral and really just glorified murder. Those for pro-choice believe that a woman should have the free reign to decide what she wants to do with her own body and that the federal government should have no say in something so personal, this side also argues that illegalizing abortion contradicts the supposed freedoms that we are supposed to have as American citizens. For years the issue has been thrown around and stretched in every which way, but its innate sensitivity has consistently hindered the attempt at finding any kind of middle ground among the very passionate defenders of each side.
Initially, there were 30 states that declared abortion to be an illegal procedure—this was up until Roe vs. Wade in 1973 when the Supreme Court decided to make it legal in not just some, but in all of America’s 50 states. With this, though, each state was still given its own individual regulatory power to decide at what point in a pregnancy they could allow/proceed with the procedure. Although all states should currently be allowing abortions (at least early in pregnancies), many of them have created their own legislation that creates a way around this federal requirement, or at least attempts to. For example, in 2006, South Carolina’s governor signed into law that performing abortions in the state be considered a felony—after only a few months, though, this new law ended up being repealed in a referendum. This tiring game of back-and-forth still lives on today as the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate continues.
The pro-life side of the abortion debate hones in very intently on the fact that even a fetus still in the womb has an “inherent right to life” and, with this, the belief that our federal government is obligated to preserve any and all human life, no matter what the circumstances and/or intent may be. Much of the rhetoric in this argument seems to stem from more of an emotional appeal more than anything else as a large focus of it is the attempt to further humanize the child in the womb when it comes to abortions and make people understand that although not yet fully developed, these are babies we are talking about—our very own human children who they believe should have just as many rights as the rest of us. This humanization of the topic is what really seems to be the inherent main goal and that is because with such an approach it is eerily easy to garner sympathy for the potential future human being in question. The common audience to this argument tends to be the Republican party. Although both major parties have members on either side of the issue, Republicans are prominently pro-life while Democrats lean more towards pro-choice. This viewpoint also appeals to those who are more strongly/strictly religious, for as mentioned previously, the pro-life supporters blatantly advertise abortion as murder, which is strictly seen as and understood to be a terrible sin. Aside from emotional appeals, much of the persuasive technique from this particular side comes in a more scientific form. It is common for pro-life activists to provide facts and data regarding the details of pregnancy and exactly how the growth of a fetus commences in the womb. Spread on every social media you will find visuals, whether that be photos or videos, showing what the unborn child looks like inside the mother’s stomach at various stages in the pregnancy in order to make the issue more real. Along with this, they are very adamant on spreading information about exactly how the procedure occurs so that people can know just how the baby is affected by it. A flaw in their method, though, is that they frequently show photos/videos of a pregnancy in the last trimester where the fetus has very recognizably human features and, when explaining the procedure, do so in regards to this particular stage of growth. The majority of abortions happen much earlier on in a pregnancy when a fetus is completely unrecognizable and not yet having attained any human features in the slightest. Along with this, abortions in the last trimester are banned in most all states to begin with. Although the pro-life stance can be understandable and strong, it is the more irrational and emotionally powered/centered side of the debate.
As for the pro-choice side, their main argument boils down to the idea that because abortion concerns a woman’s body, it should be a woman’s right. This appeals very much to those who are Democrats and more liberal-leaning, as it is very heavy on the belief of freedom for all people and the right to do as we please when it’s concerning our own being—it ties in with the fundamental beliefs that support other issues such as same-sex marriage, LGBT adoption rights, and gender identity issues. While pro-life defends their side using emotion and shock appeal, pro-choice is more intent on empowering its audience and instilling a sense of individuality and inherent freedom within them. They challenge the belief that the federal government should get to be involved in our own personal lives and question how and why we would let this go so far as to concern our bodies as well. The issue of rape and incest induced pregnancies come in to this argument as well, showing that no one, especially the government, ever knows in perfect depth exactly what is happening to and in an individual person and therefore only the said person should be given the opportunity to make a decision on what they can or cannot do within the parameters of their own body. The argument clearly puts a large emphasis on individuality and not letting oneself be a puppet to the federal government and its decisions. The ability of a woman living as a citizen in the United States to have full control of her own body is imperative to basic civil rights. Removing her reproductive choice brings you to fragile ground, and the pro-choice movement uses this idea to raise the question, if the government can control this, what else will they be able to control? Along with the discussed tones of empowerment and individualism, this approach on the issue of abortion also uses a subtle fear factor. If Americans can be made aware of how easy it is for the government to try to interfere with our bodies, it may encourage them to speak up about the issue due to fear of what more they could begin to manipulate within our lives if we choose to idly stand by and let them legislate something so intimate to women as individuals.
Both the pro-life and pro-choice debates on abortion are intricate and strong, but one relies more on provoking emotion through basic religious beliefs and harsh truths while the other has the intent of providing a space to fight for fundamental rights and supplying the motivation to fight for the issue as a means of preventing future public policies that could be potentially more invasive from arising. Ultimately, the nature of the topic results in both arguments being more-or-less opinion and belief based as opposed to more prominently built on facts. In this way, each side is really only speaking to people who already support their same position. Although their goal may be to garner more support, what is more likely to occur is just further rallying of those already involved and invested in the issue. It is for this reason that the question of whether abortion is acceptable is a never ending debate—there is no definite answer.
Comentarios