Abortion has been practiced from antiquity, and it has been a controversial issue for centuries. However, despite strong views and strict state policies, it has never met full support, and it was never completely abolished. To this day, it continues to remain a debated topic and neither of the stakeholders seem to weaken their position. Though support for abortion has increased as compared to the past, and many countries have legalized this practice, pro-life supporters continue to have major impact on state regulations. While pro-abortion supporters take into consideration the pregnant woman’s right to dispose of her own body, and do not consider the fetus to be a person, pro-life supporters believe that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception and consider that it should have the same rights as a born child. While critics take one or another position on the topic, it is clear that their points of view differ to a great extent, even when their positions are the same. Regardless of their points of view however, it may be noticed that pro-life supporters emphasize the fetus and ignore the women’s needs, while pro-abortion supporters emphasize the woman and do not refer to the fetus. This aspect of the debate will be discussed in the present paper.
As in any debate, there are two major positions, namely “for” and “against” abortion, and all authors who discuss this topic situate on one side or another. However, their views on the topic differ in the nature of their arguments, the sources of their views, and their opinions on the direction in which abortion regulations should advance. Thus, Winikof and Davis (2007) discussed in their article on the topic of accessible means of early abortion, and the reasons why they should be developed. According to them, “abortion is quintessentially about women” (p.1904) and the problems they confront with, and “the development of accessible and simple methods of early abortion is a social and humanitarian good from almost every point of view” (p.1904). A failed procedure that involves medication usually leads to surgical intervention, which results in a traumatic experience for the woman. Therefore, the authors concluded that medical research on abortion medication should always have at its center women’s needs.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Right to Not to Become a Mother, Or the Right to Become a Child".
While Winikof and Davis (2007) spoke from a medical point of view, Gabrielson and Milender (2013) brought the legal view to the discussion. In their review of the topic from a legal perspective, the author explained how the abortion legislation evolved, and gave an account on the current abortion restrictions that stop women from interrupting their pregnancy, or make it difficult for them to do so. For example, they explained that in later developmental stages, the right to abortion is restricted, and for underage women, consent from the parents is required. The authors discussed emerging trends and concluded their review with the view that in the United States, abortion legislation is becoming increasingly restrictive and women’s access to abortion is becoming limited.
Both Winikof and Davis (2007) and Gabrielson and Milender (2013) are pro-abortion and this is clear in their articles though neither makes this explicit statement. In each of their arguments, their position is suggested by their arguments, and it seems as if they do not need to express this fact. Winikof and Davis (2007) and Gabrielson and Milender (2013) tried to maintain an objective tone, and each of them referred to specific issues on the topic. However, despite their objectivity, each made it clear that they considered abortion to be women’s right and each believed that this right is currently under threat. Winikof and Davis (2007) argued for women’s right to ending their pregnancies as safely and easily as possible, whereas Gabrielson and Milender (2013) addressed the legal rights of women to access abortion and argued that this right is more and more threatened by new restrictions and limitations.
However, neither of the articles referred to the fetuses, and this aspect of the problem was completely ignored. This is because, for the promoters of abortion, a fetus is not “a person” until it is born. Thus, for them, the woman, her rights, her safety and her well-being are the sole consideration. Despite this similar position, there are differences in the authors’ approaches. Winikof and Davis (2007) explained their pro-abortion position as a concern for the society in general, and for women in particular. Their view had a social motivation, because the authors argued in favor of accessible methods for early abortion in order to stop late abortions, and clandestine abortions that put women’s health at risk, but also to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, particularly in the case of very poor women. On the other hand, Gabrielson and Milender (2013) defended women’s legal right to dispose of their own bodies, and argued that restrictions imposed by authorities were limitations of these rights. Although both articles maintained professional and detached tone, the fact that neither of them mentioned the fetuses, suggests that they tried to ignore the controversial aspect of the problem.
On the contrary, pro-life supporters highlight the fetus and put the woman, her problems, needs and rights in the shadow. It may be also noticed that, whereas the pro-abortion authors remained objective and did not present their personal views on the topic, but rather used scientific, legal and historical data to present their cases, the authors whose arguments were against abortion were all subjective. Thus, in his work, Williamson (2013) addressed the issue from an ethical and philosophical perspective, trying to show that the fact that the society allows the killing of unborn children is an act which will seem as barbarian to future generations, as human sacrifices practiced by ancient civilizations seem to us today. Furthermore he argues, the society will reach a new stage of evolution when the act itself will become unconceivable, as homicide, cannibalism, or any other violent ending of another human being’s life. Although Williamson (2013) addressed to the audience using the first person point of view, he nevertheless maintain a detached tone and brought firm evidence in favor of his argument, using notions from biology, and politics, to argue that the fetus was in fact a person, not merely an organism.
On the other hand, Bates (2007), in her short piece, presented a highly subjective point of view. In fact, she recalled her own experience as a nurse in a gynecological ward, where she had to assist medics during induced abortion procedures. She talked about this experience as a traumatic one. She was particularly outraged that women would terminate their pregnancies for superficial reasons. Thus, as she explained, “some of the grounds for the terminations seemed so trivial. ‘Starting a new job’ did not seem to be a good enough reason somehow” (p.27). Therefore, here the nurse expressed her own feelings in regards to what she had seen, and her point of view maybe considered valid because, as compared to the majority of the population, she could witness and even take part in an abortion procedure. Her argument questioned the morality of the abortion, and she saw the fetus, as a future child who never got to be born.
Finally, in an article whose title, “Abortion as Betrayal” seems to oppose directly the title of Winikof and Davis’ (2007), “Abortion is for Women”, Stith (2009) took a deeply religious stance and condemned abortion “as worse than ordinary murder, principally because it involves the betrayal of a dependent by a natural guardian” (p.71). He continued by bringing evidence regarding the gravity of the act. He used quotes from the Bible, and mentioned the Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, as well as authors of secular works on the topic, in orders to support his claim. The author also addressed the main argument of the opposite parties, namely that the fetus is not a person, arguing that a human being is in continuous development from conception to adulthood and beyond, and birth is merely a change in location.
As one can easily notice, these three articles that situate themselves against abortion are very different. Williamson (2013) saw the issue as a civil and ethical problem, and considered that a society which agrees to termination of pregnancy is barbaric and uncivilized. Bates (2007) was very subjective and outraged by the superficial reasons of the women who terminated their pregnancies, and her position had a moral background. Her point of view was influenced by the fact that she experienced the abortion procedure and saw the fetus being removed from the womb in pieces. Finally, Stith (2009) took a deeply religious stance and condemned abortion as the worst of all crimes. What they have in common however, apart from their view regarding abortion, is that they all refer to the fetus as an “unborn child” or even a child (Stith 2009), and they all refer to the pregnant woman as a “mother”. Therefore, they tried to influence the audience emotionally by using these labels, whereas in the articles written by pro-abortion supporters, the fetus was not mentioned at all, as if it were not even relevant to the discussion. Apart from these labels, or pro-life authors tried to appeal emotionally to the audience in various ways. Williamson used the pronoun “we” to create a closer relationship with the audience, Bates (2007) gave a graphic description of the experience, whereas Stith (2009) talked about the betrayal of the mother who kills her own child.
From their discourses, it became clear that the pro-life authors were addressing the general population so as to attempt to influence their decisions in the matter, whereas the pro-abortion writers discussed in this paper used a more professional tone, because they were addressing their peers, or a specialized type of audience. They were not trying to convince them about the validity of abortion, but rather, to show them what problems still need to be solved and to convince them that these problems are real and deny women some of their rights. Indeed, since today abortions are permitted under the law, pro-abortion supporters do not need to support their cause any longer, as they have already won. However, what is clear from this synthesis is that there will probably never be a consensus regarding abortion, because the positions of the two parties are radically different and there are no points of intersection between them. A fundamental question that needs to be answered, and which appeared in the writings analyzed above, is whether a civilized society is one which allows women to choose if they will become mothers, or one which permits all fetuses to become children.
- Bates, Jane. “Abortion”. Nursing Standard, 21(52), 27.
- Gabrielson, A., & Milender, P., (2013). “Abortion”. Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, 1, 213-243.
- Stith, R. (2009). “Abortion as betrayal”. Human Life Review, 35(1/2), 71-76.
- Williamson, R. (2013). “Abortion after Texas”. Human Life Review, 39(13), 105-108.
- Winikoff, B., & Davis, A. (2007). “Abortion is for women. Lancet, 369 (9577), 1904-1906.
