Let us begin with the common misconception that pro-choice acts simultaneously as pro-abortion. First and foremost, to take on a label is to limit oneself unless they agree with all viewpoints in their category. Pro-choice and pro-life seemingly represent two categories in which both groups make a conscious decision to classify themselves as a full supporter of one side or the other. Similarly, this can be seen in the same light as the leading republican and democrat parties. Society forces us to choose one or the other or face public scrutiny for our 'hypocrisy' should our views have certain exceptions.
Contrary to popular belief, pro-choice is one of these near unheard of exceptions. One can remain neutral to an individual's unjustified decision to abort their pregnancy without standing as a pro-abortion advocate. That said, regardless of our pre-conceived and heavily polarized notions, what right have we to dictate what another does with their own body?
Though the argument has long been made in favor of both sides, allow us to observe the facts. There are those that support pro-need—the belief that abortion is not immoral in the event that the mother and/or her child is at fatal risk or the child was conceived through rape or incest. Common sense would cause one to question that if these cases are acceptable, what makes other situations inadmissible and gives legislators the authority to decide which women have earned the right to abort? What about those who do not believe that even this is not enough to constitute reason for abortion?
If a high-risk pregnancy is destined to kill both the mother and her unborn child, the decision to abort should be her own. Too often, pro-life advocates justify denying a mother the right to decide in this event because they put faith in 'what if's' such as, "what if the pregnancy were to beat all odds and both mother and child made it out alive?" or "what if the mother dies but her child is saved?". While there continues to be more successful pregnancies despite the number of those rated as high-risk with the advancement of modern medicine, a soon-to-be mother should be given the right to choose what she feels is best for both her and the child. Otherwise, how can we proclaim "pro-life" by being the cause of two deaths that could have been prevented?
Moreover, women who experienced their child's conception through unsavory circumstances such as rape and incest also have an unwavering right to decide the fate of their pregnancies. For example, in the village of Ticrapo, Peru, a five-year-old girl by the name of Lina Medina discovered she was pregnant after being raped. Her doctors found that she suffered from precocious puberty—an uncommon case in which 1 in every 10,000 children reach puberty before the age of eight. Though Medina refused to disclose who raped her, it was heavily presumed that her father was the culprit. On May 14, 1939, Medina gave birth to a healthy, six-pound baby boy via caesarean section. Her son was to be raised alongside her as her little brother before learning the truth when he became a teenager. If given the choice back then, one would reasonably assume that Medina would have opted to abort due to the circumstance of conception, her inability to be a child mother, and the fatal condition of her pregnancy at such a young age.
According to the Center for Disease Control, approximately 32,000 conceptions are the result of rape in the U.S. annually. Although Medina's case presented a peculiar exception, children that are born as a product of rape often suffer the premature consequences of their mother's emotional trauma prior to birth. Many of these children are born with birth defects and mental instabilities due to the antidepressants their mothers often take to cope throughout their pregnancies. A number of these children—including the few that are born healthy—continue to suffer from the long-term ramifications of their mother's rape. Studies have shown that women who choose to continue to carry the child of their assailant are more prone to developing resentment against their child which most often leads to neglect or abuse. At best, children—despite whether they were raised in a foster home, by adoptive parents, or their birth mother—tend to face shame and humiliation throughout their entire lives after learning of the means in which they were conceived. To be perfectly clear, this is not to say that these children do not deserve to live, rather, their mothers should simply have the choice to terminate their pregnancies.
While women's rights activists shout "my body, my choice" at the top of their lungs, one might feel this approach to the issue is too aggressive. Rather than gaining the support they so hungrily crave, most are met with abhorrence. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be to present the facts to those on the fence or in debates against pro-life advocates.
First, a doctor will only pronounce a human dead once their brain ceases to send pulse signals throughout the body. Thus, a fetus' brain does not have the ability to send pulse signals until it has developed to eight weeks. By medical standards, the fetus is neither dead nor alive prior to this time. It is simply the cells of a potential child much like the millions of eggs or billions of sperm resting unfertilized in a human's body. In addition, a fetus does not have the capacity to feel pain until it reaches twenty-six weeks of development.
Moreover, many claim that giving birth to a child and putting it up for adoption is a more favorable alternative to abortion. Although, those claiming such fail to consider the physical burdens and financial obligations involved with giving birth. The average cost to give birth in a hospital ranges anywhere from $10,958 to $21,704. It is important to note that these figures do not include the price of ultrasounds, tests, follow-ups, and prenatal care. Yes, some soon-to-be adoptive parents are willing to meet the costs of the birth mother's pregnancy but this does not say much considering that there are 435,000 children currently in the system with an adoption rate of less than 32%. The majority of mothers who decide to give birth despite their unplanned pregnancy pay for their visits, medicine, and procedures out-of-pocket. The major financial concern is the fact that there are even more mothers who can not afford to give birth.
Furthermore, outside the realm of finances, human rights should protect an individual from serving as a human incubator for nine months if she does not wish to give birth regardless of the means in which she became pregnant. A fetus' survival depends fully on the cooperation of its mother. Her body provides its sustenance at a dire physical cost. Is it fair to force a woman to use her body unwillingly in this way? How is this any different from human trafficking? Is there any wonder why back-alley abortions continue to happen regularly in countries that prohibit these procedures at professional facilities? Prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973, approximately 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions occurred annually in the U.S during the 1950s and 1960s. Today, roughly one abortion occurs every thirty seconds with a total of 349,546 having taken place since the beginning of this year alone. If history tells us anything, it's that the legalization of said procedures appears to be irrelevant in influencing rates. In other words, women who are not ready or do not have the means to support an unplanned pregnancy will continue seek ways around giving birth despite the annual 68,000 that die at the hands of an unqualified individual that continues to perform illegal abortions today.
To close, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It simply means respecting the choices others make peace with in their walks of life despite what you may have decided for yourself if you were in their position. One does not have to personally support abortion to respect the rights, privacy, and choices of others.
