The Political and Ethical Scene Surrounding Abortion

October 2023

In America’s current political climate, the debate over abortion has reached unseen levels of controversy as extremists on both sides refuse to budge on the topic of women’s reproductive rights. It is indisputable that this issue would not be as polarizing as it is if it did not cover as complicated a topic as abortion—with its unpleasant edge-cases and unsettling background of philosophical dispute. However, there is still reason to believe that one side’s extreme views agitate much more cause for concern than the other’s. You see, while the solution to the problem likely resides in a healthy medium between both sides, the pro-life goal of outright banning abortion in all of its forms is simply an unacceptable approach to the matter. Instead, we need to set a federal standard for safe, legal access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy while leaving it up to the states to make any further regulations that their citizens may believe are necessary.

In order to cover this issue with as much precision as possible, it is best to first define the terms of abortion and their respective histories within our nation from both an ethical and political standpoint. Understanding that abortion is the voluntary act of terminating a human pregnancy, it’s no wonder that both sides of the argument are as torn as they are. On one hand, pro-choice beliefs see abortion as a fundamental display of a woman’s right over her own body; on the other hand, pro-life beliefs see the act of abortion as being equatable to literal infanticide. To put this into a philosophical perspective, the pro-choice argument bases itself on the idea that “…abortion is justified because the unborn child is inside and dependent on the woman’s body,” while the pro-life argument’s basis is that “…unborn children are distinct members of the human species and that human rights belong to all human beings” (Stark). This is why, in an argument between a pro-life extremist and a pro-choice extremist, there is never a clear solution that satisfies both of them. This is especially true once you consider that both sides are trying their hardest to make the other’s viewpoint seem unthinkable. According to one pro-life news source, “Following Dobbs, abortion advocates stirred up and exploited confusion about the ruling. They falsely claimed that the pro-life movement wanted to punish or prosecute women who have abortions. They intentionally blurred the definitions of miscarriage and abortion.” Despite this message against disinformation, the same article proceeds to spread their own biased propaganda on the subject, stating that “[pro-choice Democrats] made it no secret that they want unlimited abortion nationwide, for any reason until birth, and they want to use taxpayer dollars to cover the cost” (Cross, Karen). Worse yet, the situation has been made entirely more public and therefore more open to debate than ever before as Roe v. Wade—the thin line of caution tape that kept abortion from being banned within the U.S.—has been repealed by the United States Supreme Court via the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. As of the end of 2022, thirteen states have regulations on abortion so restrictive that it’s considered a “near total ban,” while only half of them have no ban enacted whatsoever (Rosenkrantz). More alarming is that these statistics are sure to oscillate dramatically in the coming years, meaning for mass confusion among pregnant women and doctors across the country who may find themselves waking up every handful of months to a new set of laws dictating their livelihood. The people who live out these situations deserve stability, yet pro-life politicians made the decision to upturn what little security the system had in the name of forcing their own beliefs onto their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of pro-life hypocrisy.

For as long as abortion has been in the mainstream, right-wing politicians have done everything they can to blur the lines between pro-life rhetoric and anti-abortion rhetoric. This choice has been made deliberately, as can be seen by the proposal of so-called pro-life arguments that actually seem to care very little for the lives of those it affects and much more about restricting women of their bodily autonomy. When it comes to proposals put forth that are actually in support of healthy and successful living (many of which proposed by Democrats), one may find that many so-called pro-life supporters actually vote against them. For example, Republicans struck down funding just this year for a program that would have made child care services both more accessible for families and better-paying for workers (“Pro-Lifers Who are Anti-Child Care”). Such a program would have had immense benefits for babies born of unplanned pregnancies, yet the GOP’s policies seem to care more about protecting fetuses than they do about protecting children. Another example is the repetitive denial by Republicans of the services offered by Medicaid and Planned Parenthood, both of which are organizations with the capacity to help families who are made vulnerable by abortion bans. Planned Parenthood, for example, offers affordable contraceptives, as well as HIV, STI, and cancer tests/screenings for those in need, yet they were defunded by Republicans in Texas years ago (“Who Gets Hurt by GOP’s ‘Pro-Life’ Hypocrisy”). Similar hypocritical acts can be seen when examining pro-life policies regarding access to contraceptives, sexual education, and even legal cases surrounding rape. Also consider that Medicaid “…does not cover abortion in 34 states and the District of Columbia,” and you’ll begin to see the pattern of how this issue is classist in nature, most negatively affecting lower-class Americans, especially when you begin to take into account the cost of traveling to a state that has protected abortion laws (Vaida). It’s disgraceful to see an entire political party continue to use the very serious topic of abortion only as a means to advance their own agenda without any respect for the people whose lives are actually affected by it. Yet the so-called “pro-life” performance of Republicans continues to give them an advantage. Still, the perceived importance of abortion within American politics makes it so that both sides seem to have an equal say in the matter as elections go on and voters scramble to ensure that their view is reflected by their representatives. So, then, we must ask ourselves how and what about the current political scene is likely to evolve as well as which steps each side is undertaking to do so.

As abortion tears the parties further apart, it consequently becomes a topic of even greater importance within American democracy. Meanwhile, both sides of the political spectrum take advantage of abortion’s controversial nature to ensure easy votes in general elections. There is a blatantly obvious issue here in the use of women’s rights as a stepping stone towards political gain, yet both parties seem to ignore it. More so, putting the issue on the electoral ticket while the stakes surrounding it are so high can end up making the election process even more black-and-white than what our bipartisan system already encourages. The binary approach of polls nowadays—which will ask people to identify as either pro-choice or pro-life—have very little relevance to the actual discussion regarding abortion. As one magazine puts it,“…these self-descriptions are deceiving–only about one-fifth to one-quarter of the public support abortion under any circumstance. A similar number would make abortion illegal under all circumstances” (Greenberg). This can skew legislation regarding other issues in unintended directions, all because citizens are placing an overexaggerated amount of worry on abortion instead of other everyday problems. With this in mind, federal law still doesn’t reflect the American majority’s perspective. A recent Gallup poll showed that 55% of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” while as Wallstreet Journal poll reported that 60% of voters said that abortion should be legal in “all or most cases,” and 29% saying it should be illegal with exceptions for rape, incest, and cases that put the woman’s life in danger—only 6% supported an outright ban (Rosenkrantz). A point of even greater importance is the wave of young female voters who are becoming adults with increasingly strong support for pro-choice legislation. One poll reads that over 80% of female voters ages 18-49 opposed the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and support is only likely to rise (“A Year After Dobbs, the Pro-Choice Movement Has Never Been Stronger”). That being said, the topic is likely to play an incredibly large role in the outcome of the 2024 election as each party attempts to mobilize their voters behind moderates with agreeable, albeit lazy policies simply to secure votes and proceed with their own strategy for handling the future of abortion in America. This is where the problem really lies. The very act of having abortion on the ticket can bring long-term damage to our democracy as it allows politicians to successfully campaign on one issue alone. Only by eliminating this standard and ensuring a stable abortion policy that reflects the majority’s views can we move past this one issue and begin to hone our votes towards building a better country in many different regards.

Those with opposing viewpoints on abortion believe that it should remain unprotected, therefore keeping its importance in American politics. However, this only brings greater polarization and disagreement among the voters of our country. It is a selfish, inexcusable act that works in counter to our mission to come together and mobilize as Americans in pursuit of a country that benefits all of us as equally as possible. It is no doubt true that having such an extremely real issue on the ballot leads to a ready mobilization of people within their own political parties. As great as this is for Democrats and Republicans, it continues to force this binary perspective onto the people of our nation, only resulting in greater division in the long run. By reassessing our goals, we can work our way towards cooperation and unity. The truth is, after all, that the majority of Americans don’t share extreme views on either side of the issue; instead, we are willing to compromise with one another and see logic in perspectives that perhaps we don’t fully agree with. By recentering the legality of abortion onto this idea, we can ensure that most Americans can find peace with the issue’s legislation while still providing stability to those whose lives it affects most.

As has been discussed, the controversial political state surrounding abortion has been amplified over time to the point that neither party believes that they can concede any of their points to the other. However, if we were to zoom out and approach individuals on a scale not of pro-life vs pro-choice, but instead via a spectrum of what should and shouldn’t be restricted in the scheme of abortion, we may find that the ability to compromise is much closer than we think. As the topic is discussed more and more, people are beginning to open up to the ideas of others, and the issue has potential to be resolved if both politicians and the public can agree to stray away from extreme resolutions, instead putting narrow restrictions into play on a case-by-case basis.

Works Cited

“A Year After Dobbs, the Pro-Choice Movement Has Never Been Stronger.” Washingtonpost.com, 26 June 2023, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 13 Sept. 2023.

Cross, Karen. “Elections Play Key Role in Pro-Life Effort to Make Abortion Unthinkable.” National Right to Life News, June 2023, p. 1. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 15 Sept. 2023.

Greenberg, Anna. “Will Choice be Aborted?” The American Prospect, vol. 12, no. 17, 24 Sept. 2001, p. A25. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 17 Sept. 2023.

“Pro-Lifers Who are Anti-Child Care.” The Progressive, vol. 87, no. 4, Aug.-Sept. 2023, p. 70. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 15 Sept. 2023.

Rosenkrantz, Holly. “Abortion Post-Roe.” CQ Researcher, 09 Sep 2022. Thousand Oaks, California: CQ Press, 2022. 15 Sep 2023.
Stark, Paul. “The Bodily Autonomy Argument for Abortion: Here’s Why it Cannot Justify Killing or Neglect.” National Right to Life News, Dec. 2022, p. 5. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 15 Sept. 2023.

Vaida, Bara. “Abortion”. CQ Researcher, 15 Aug 2019. Thousand Oaks, California: CQ Press, 2019. 18 Sep 2023.
“Who Gets Hurt by GOP’s ‘Pro-Life’ Hypocrisy.” CNN Wire, 20 May 2017. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Accessed 15 Sept. 2023.