Over the years, abortion has been a highly debated and controversial topic in the realm of human rights, pitting pro-choicers against pro-lifers. The (US) Supreme Court landmark decision on 24th June 2024 in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), overturning Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) rejecting the notion of a constitutional or fundamental right to abortion and effectively returning the individual States power to regulate any aspect of abortion. This decision has re-ignited debates and widespread protests as it has the capacity to influence other countries’ laws on sexual, reproductive health and rights. As the conversations rage on, it becomes increasingly evident that the issue is far more nuanced than a simple pro-choice vs pro-life situation. The article seeks to explore the complexities regarding abortion through raising thought provoking questions.

The Triple Standards

The abortion conundrum is viewed through 3 lenses by the public. Some believe ardently that human life comes into existence at conception and as such abortion brings an end to innocent life. On the other hand, others strongly believe that a woman’s right to control her own body is invaded if any restriction or regulation on abortion is made, thereby preventing women from achieving full equality. Third category, though holding various opinions on the restrictions that should be imposed, believe that abortion should be allowed in some but not all circumstances

A Crucial Right

“My Body, My Choice.” (Feminist slogan used in several countries)

Majority of the supporters of abortion front choice as the basis to justify abortion(s) with various arguments:

• Potts et al, in their Abortion (1977) indicate that pro-choice activists propose that a birth of a child is something that should occur when parents are ready to assume that responsibility and not a matter of chance which in turns would enable children to be born into a conducive home and environment that ensures full enjoyment and realization of their human rights.
• Others fervently believe that in addition to its being a means of exercising their right and liberty with regards one’s body, pro-choice advocates argue that abortion provides them a chance to straighten their lives, for instance continue with their education, get out of toxic and abusive relationships/marriages, fear of disappointment, to mention but a few. [Reasons sourced from the article by The American Civil Liberties Union,”Your Abortions. Your Voices. Your Stories.]
• Pro-choice advocates emphasize that in circumstances such as incest and rape that live a traumatizing mental, emotional, and physical effect on the victims, abortion is the way to mitigate the trauma, and heal, though others do not recover from the experience. Koster (2003) illustrates that adding a child to the rape victim is like adding more salt to a victim’s wounds and would act as a constant reminder of the ordeal, adding more emotional trauma.

Though strong points by pro-choice supporters, the arguments tend to ignore the relevance of the innocent unborn child who is a victim of circumstances out of his or her control. This is usually overlooked because of the question as to when life begins: at conception, after a certain period or outside the womb. This in my opinion begs the question; would humans exist or be born if any of the said stages from conception to birth were missed? Or do all stages define life and as such human life should be protected at all stages?

Moral Wrong

“Giving Murder a nice name like Choice does not make it okay.”

– Take My Hand, Not My Life (Facebook Community Page)

To most pro-lifers, abortion is tantamount to murder, deeming it a moral wrong that should be discarded. According to Genovesi, in his book, In pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (1996), murder is an intentional act of taking away the life of a human being. He further argues that since the fetus of a person has life, taking it away will amount to killing it (murder). Pro-life activists and advocates emphasize the importance of protecting a life regardless of the stages of human development.

Koster, voices the opinion of pro-lifers arguing that abortion is merely an irrational and temporary relief to an unwanted child or pregnancy at the risk of permanent infertility and future childbirth complicated, coupled with long term guilt, sadness and/or shame. Koster’s findings from the interviews conducted on women who had complications when performing an abortion indicated that most of them had lost the ability to conceive or had a miscarriage.

With regard to the feelings of immediate relief and long term guilt, sadness and shame that arise post abortion, Holman in his The Family in the New Millennium (1996), enunciates that most times, the feeling of relief is simply a deliberate psychological attempt by the person to eliminate the sense of guilt that sets in after procuring an abortion. Zastrow and Kirst in their reiterate the late Pope John Pope’s stance as he condemned the practice, daring to say that such practice would threaten humankind’s freedom and dignity and it breeds a culture of embracing death as normal thing.

Furthermore, pro-lifers such as Zastrow argue that in an era where there is a plethora of alternatives to abortion such as various forms of contraceptives, and adoption (as a post birth measure), abortion should not be fronted as the first or best option to preventing unwanted pregnancies. This is mainly due to its moral implications on a society, pro-lifers instead propose the extension in provision of these health services to the people in society.

Arguments posed by pro-lifers front the question(s); Is abortion really a human right that is worth preserving, in upholding sexual, reproductive health and rights? Should the law prioritize abortion as a human right, potentially conflicting with the right to life of (an) innocent child(ren) while simultaneously condemning the death penalty as a human rights violation, despite its aim to protect the rights of victims and society, albeit with acknowledged imperfections?

The Agony of Necessity

There are exceptional circumstances wherein life and health hang in balance and the healthcare system and personnel, though stuck between a rock and hard place, must make a heart wrenching decision to end a life to save another. A case in point is when complications occur during pregnancy, whether the life of the child or mother or both, is in danger. In these circumstances, White and Baldwin in their Legal and Ethical Aspects of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine note that in such cases, abortion ought to be permitted to save the physical health of the mother and the mother’s mental health should be given due consideration and attention. Other grounds include situations where there are high chances of giving birth to a child suffering from various or complex and life-threatening illnesses and disorders because of genetic disorders, birth complications to mention but a few.

Though rape could be considered as an exceptional ground that warrants abortion, it can also highly be contested by anti-abortionists, that rape victims can seek treatment and access the necessary contraceptives to avoid pregnancy (Zastrow). However, this opinion seems to overlook inhibiting factors such as trauma, stigma, shame, self-doubt, low esteem, societal judgement that usually haunt rape victims preventing them from seeking any assistance or even confiding in family, friends, relatives and guardians. Furthermore, other anti-abortionists may argue that abortion on demand does not help the victim but rather enables their perpetrators. These opinions raise the question; Should rape victims be expected to carry the resultant pregnancy to term in a bid to prioritize the life of the unborn child over their mental health and wellbeing, and its potential for long term trauma, despite having an alternative for adoption? This question, however, should not overshadow the fact that not all rape victims want to get rid of their pregnancies.

Conclusion

The article, though not providing a conclusive stand on the abortion debate, establishing what is wrong and right, seeks to highlight the complexities regarding abortion.

References

• Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
• Potts M, Diggory P, Peel J (1977), Abortion. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• The American Civil Liberties Union, Your Abortions. Your Voices. Your Stories.
• Koster, W. (2003): Secret strategies: Women and Abortion in Yoruba society, Nigeria. [Thesis, fully internal, Universiteit van Amsterdam]. Aksant.
• Vincent J Genovesi (1996): In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality. Liturgixal Press 1996.
• Holman, Thomas (1996): The Family in the New Millennium. Westport: Praeger Publishers. 2007. Print. Liturgical Press, 1996. Print.
• Charles Zastrow, Karen K. Kirst-Ashman: Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment. Eighth edition. Brooks Cole; 8th Edition (1 January 2009).
• Stuart M. White and Timothy J. Baldwin: Legal and Ethical Aspects of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine. Cambridge University Press (2004) Online Publication, 2009.

Marie Patricia Natakwa