Pro-life vs Pro-choice: The Abortion Spectrum Explained

Abortion laws have become one of the most controversial subjects in the global arena today. From ethical questions to legal arguments, the abortion debate asks whether it is morally right to terminate a pregnancy before normal childbirth. The multiple ideologies and beliefs that dominate the sphere can broadly be divided into two factions- the pro-life argument (which favours the value of the life of the unborn child over the mother) positioned against the pro-choice debate (which affirms the right of women over their own bodies.)

In my opinion, the pro-choice belief wins over the pro-life ideology. Women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. Since the beginning of time, women have been treated as passive citizens, that is of course, if they were considered human at all. We live in the 21st century, and there are still countries that permit marital rape, even when the victim is a child. The right to abortion is vital, because it gives women the permission, a getaway from abusive homes. If denied, unwanted pregnancies can lead to women feeling trapped within their own homes because they must protect their child.

Furthermore, the responsibility of child has always been more on women than men and often renders them unable to fulfil their dreams. If a woman is not allowed to have an abortion, she is not only forced to continue the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child. If women have the right to choose whether or not to have children, they can achieve equality: men don't get pregnant, and so aren't restricted in the same way. The feminist liberalists in the Roe vs Wade US Supreme Court Case asked women to be treated as people when taking the decision of the legality and ethical nature of abortion, and not just the container of the foetus. As a final argument, I pose a question- if our society has been rendered useless in protecting the supposed universal rights of one person, who are we to say we can take responsibility of two?

On the other side of the spectrum, the pro-life belief argues that abortion can damage the long-term physical and emotional health of women Other feminists also see abortion as a ‘male-plot’, i.e. the availability of abortion to backup contraception can help men attain full sexual freedom (i.e. the choice to have sex without having additional responsibility.)

However, the core of the pro-life argument, as its name suggests, is to protect the rights of the unborn child. The core issue of the abortion debacle itself is whether the unborn child should be considered human or not. Since it is an established fact that every human has the right to live, the stage at which the foetus is categorised as human can solve the dilemma. Unfortunately, there's no agreement in any field as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life, leading to the argument that we should always err in favour of an earlier date, so as to cause minimal damage to the foetus. A part of the pro-life belief is also the potential human agenda. Since even at the conceiving stage, the mother’s uterus contains a potential human, it should be granted the same rights as an actual person.

While abortion remains a moral grey area, it is vital our lawmakers keep in mind not just the aforementioned, but all perspectives possible when taking the decision. Our cultures, experiences and pasts affect our views, and there is not a single person whose opinions have no personal backing. Every belief has a moral and ethical reasoning behind it, and it is essential that every viewpoint be taken in consideration before making a law, because laws do not just affect the lives of a handful of people, but cause repercussions for the whole world. In the end, the accuracy of a decision is not measured by what side of the spectrum the lawmakers pick, but rather by if it is a win for humanity as a whole.

Written by Umang Dhingra, President