Abortion is the intentional termination of a human pregnancy. Whether or not abortion should be considered valid on moral grounds, and consequently, whether or not it should be legal, has been a long debated topic not only in the United States, but the world. Abortion was made legal in the United States under the landmark court case known as Roe v. Wade in 1973, but the controversy over the topic has not let up. This has grown to be one of the most important issues our country faces, evident in the fact that when a politician is their platform, they always address their stance on the issue of abortion. Politicians who are in favor of abortion are referred to as “pro-choice” and they often promise to ensure safe, and affordable abortions for the women of the country. Politicians who oppose abortion are referred to as “pro-life” and they promise to outlaw abortion. The reason politicians are so heavily involved in the topic is because the primary job of a politician is to represent the needs of the people, and the people have not stopped talking about abortion since the court ruling over fifty years ago. This debate sparks incredible passion in the hearts and minds of those who care, which is a group of people that expands from future mothers and fathers, to families, adoption agencies, and religious folk. Each of these groups have something invested in the outcome of this debate. Obviously future mothers and fathers are affected by the legality of abortion, as it either expands their options or limits them. Adoption agencies are affected because if abortion were not legal, there would be an influx of children put up for adoption, to be matched with parents willing to adopt. The stakes are high for each group, which is what triggers so much passion when this topic is debated. Both the members of the pro-choice and pro-life movements have created various groups in order to gather a following, and inspire change in our country. The problem with the abortion debate is that no matter which decision is made the country is still divided. We must strive to find a potential compromise between those who are pro-choice, and those who are pro-life. 

Debates that have one position that clearly has a stronger foundation in its argument are not argued for long, which is why the debate over legalized abortion has lasted for over half a century; both sides have strong arguments. For example, those who have adopted the view of pro-choice argue that the fetus is inside the woman’s body, and is feeding off of her nutrients, much like a parasite. Consequently, a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wishes to have something feeding off of her body, as it is her own body. In the past, pro-choice advocates would argue that we cannot be sure when human life truly begins, and a fetus cannot be considered a human. Since then, it has been proven that human life begins at the moment of conception; to this, those in favor of abortion ask when personhood begins. A fetus does not have the ability to survive on its own, and thus cannot be compared to those in the real world. Personhood is what makes all of us who we are, so if a fetus is not a person, should we be concerned with terminating it?

Another pro-choice argument addresses the financial situation of the future mother and whether or not she is in a fiscally advantageous position to raise and care for a child. Many pregnant women simply do not have the funds to provide their child with a good life, so it is argued that it would be better to terminate the pregnancy than let the child into a world where they likely will have to suffer through poverty. Another point that is closely related to the financial argument is the situation of a rape-induced pregnancy. A woman experiences a horrific, traumatizing sexual assault, and in addition has an unwanted pregnancy. Surely this woman should not have to then raise the unwanted child of the man who raped for the following eighteen years, that would essentially be sentencing this woman to a two-decade long punishment for doing no wrong. 

The last main pro-choice argument addresses the fact that abortion is already a constitutional right for a reason. Even if abortion was illegal women would still have them because they do not want to give up their freedom to raise a child. The outlaw of abortion could lead to an increased fatality rate due to women having unsafe and unregulated abortions. This argument is often used as an appeal to the morality of pro-life advocates; if they want to preserve life, why would they insist on women putting themselves in danger? The pro-choice side of the abortion debate clearly has a strong foundation of valid arguments rooted in the safety of the mother.

Those who consider themselves pro-life essentially believe that abortion is murder. Many people hear that statement and dismiss it for they believe it sounds absurd that ending the life of something as large as an acorn can be considered murder. However, when looking at the facts of the matter, it is only logical to consider such an act as murder. The human fetus, while it may be dependent on its mother, is a human nonetheless and it should be illegal to terminate the life of one.  The majority of the pro-life argument is providing counter arguments to the pro-choice counter arguments of the claim that abortion is murder. Since science has proven that human life begins at conception, the pro-life argument has been strengthened significantly, creating as strong foundation along with other arguments like the option for adoption. So many families are looking to adopt, so it seems as though there is no reason not to at least have the baby and give it up for adoption. Other than the main claim that abortion is murder and the point of using adoption services, the foundation to the pro-life argument does not consist of much more. 

Legalized abortion holds validity when one looks at the situation realistically. It seems absurd to equate a fetus to an adult human, giving it the same rights. While biologically a fetus may in fact be human, it does not have unique thoughts, feelings, or emotions. These traits are what separate us from other animals. Subsequently, pro-choice advocates are correct in saying that a fetus should not be considered a person, but rather a potential person. If thoughts, feelings, and emotions are what make human life special, and fetuses do not possess those traits, should the termination of one truly be considered immoral? Regardless of the morality of the scenario, women will continue to abort their children, so it would make sense to at least provide a safe environment for them to do so. 

While the pro-choice argument has its merits, it does not completely discount the pro-life perspective. Science has proven the fact that human life begins at conception, which is what provokes the question, “when does personhood begin?” This is a question that inherently has no correct answer, as it is a question of opinion. Those who are in favor of legalized abortion often argue that the human fetus should not be considered a person because it lacks the ability to sustain life without its mother, it cannot experience emotions or thought; the traits that make humans unique. However, what child does not need their mother in order to sustain life? Most children don’t become completely dependent until they reach their twenties, so clearly the point that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother is irrelevant, because children are dependent on their mothers even outside of the womb. As for questioning when personhood begins, that is quite subjective. The idea of personhood seems to hint at how much of your potential as a human being are you fulfilling. For example, the capability of feeling emotion, and having thoughts is the first step to personhood. However, one could argue that you are not truly reaching that potential, and thus, not a person, if you do not know how to use those emotions and thoughts. By such logic, most children would not be considered persons, and only high-functioning adults would be considered persons. The gap in personhood between a fetus and a young child is similar to that of the gap in personhood between a child and an adult. Does this gap in personhood dictate whether one human’s life is more valuable than another? Is a young, naïve child’s life more valuable than a middle-aged, wise adult’s? The concept of personhood is far too broad and subjective for it to hold much weight at all in such a serious topic.

As for the point that most women who have abortions have them because of their financial situation, and it would not be fair to bring a child into the world that cannot be financially stable, I point out adoption. There are ample amounts of families looking to adopt babies, and it is simply insensible to terminate the life of the fetus if there would have been opportunity for it to be in a family with a stable financial situation. You cannot validate killing the fetus on grounds that a good life was not probable for it, when you have not even considered all the options. At that moment, the argument becomes more of an excuse than anything else, as your interest is clearly not in the baby, but in yourself.

It is a fact that women will continue to undergo abortion procedures regardless of whether not it is legal, people break laws. However, the fact that a law will be broken in the future, does not make the legislation pointless. Slavery is illegal in the United States, but unfortunately, there are still people who are enslaved in this country. Do the existence of these slaves mean that the United States government might as well just make slavery legal? Of course not, and similarly, if abortion were illegal, it would be preposterous to revoke the law simply because of its violators. 

While both sides of this argument have their credits, I tend to side more with that of the pro-life perspective. I understand and am able to sympathize with the pro-choice side, as having to raise a child can change a woman’s life dramatically and abortion is a solution. But I cannot ignore the alternative solution of adoption. When a woman chooses to abort her child instead of decided to put it up for adoption, I can understand that it is most likely to avoid the agony of child birth. However, I believe that one should be able to put themselves aside, if it means providing an opportunity for a life. This situation has an element of a crime of omission, having the opportunity to save a life and instead not going through with that act. 

I understand the passion that this topic invokes in people, and I have seen first-hand debates over this subject. Both sides become increasingly entrenched in their own view, and refuse to even consider the view of their counterpart. Neither side will ever acquiesce, and this debate continues to divide our nation further. At some point, we will have to decide on some sort of compromise in order to preserve unity. That compromise can only happen when pro-life advocates can agree that there are indeed some circumstances where an abortion is necessary. Similarly, a compromise can only happen when pro-choice advocates can agree that abortion is in fact the killing of a human, and it should absolutely be as limited as possible. 

Assuming that the conditions of the compromise have been met, I suggest a solution to this debate. If a woman were to want an abortion, she should have to fill out an application of sorts explaining why this procedure is necessary. Necessary procedures would involve cases where the birth might put the mother’s life in danger due to her medical condition, and cases of rape and incest. When this application is sent in, a check will be done to confirm that if the child were to be born, it would have a family willing to adopt. If there are no families willing to adopt, and the foster care systems are lacking, then an abortion will be permitted in such a situation. I do not agree with it, as I believe that it would still be worth it to give the child a chance despite the odds, but this is a solution of compromise and it is necessary to relent.

Lesser solutions include the obvious, either allow abortions to happen without any regulation, or completely ban it.  These are the extremes on either side of the debate, and extremes are never a wise choice in terms of legislation; they do not make for a united nation. My solution clearly leans on the side of pro-life, so allow me to provide a solution that leans on the side of pro-choice. Women are only forbidden from aborting their child if they are completely financially stable, the pregnancy was not a product of a rape or incestuous relationship, and there are families willing to adopt. This solution, much like the one I proposed, is a compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice views. It allows for many abortions to be performed while also partially satisfying the pro-life views.

The problem with this solution is how little it satisfies the beliefs of those who are pro-life. In the process of making a solution, I first made sure to consider why the pro-choice cause is so adamant about having legalized abortion, and it is not because they want to abort pregnancies just for the sake of doing it. Both sides of this argument are simply trying to ensure health. Pro-choice advocates want to ensure the physical and mental health of a mother by allowing her to not have her baby, while pro-life advocates want to ensure the health of the child simply by it being born. Once I established this, I then worked to find a solution where the health of both parties could be secure, for example, the mother not having to raise the child, and the child gets the opportunity to live with a family willing to raise him or her. To further satisfy those who consider themselves pro-choice, my solution allowed for abortions to continue to be performed, but only when absolutely necessary.

Compromises can prove to be extremely difficult when the matter at hand is one that people feel so passionately about, but they are extremely vital if we wish to keep this country at an equilibrium. When the nation is split in half on significant issues like this one, it continues to divide the nation further until the nation hits its breaking point. An issue like that of abortion would not tear the country apart, but division often creates a climate for chaos. This is why our country is in dire need of a solution to the abortion issue, and not one that only satisfies one party. Life is too complicated for an absolute statement like, “I am completely pro-life” or, “I am completely pro-choice.” We must have a government representative willing to admit that there are truths to both sides, and provide a solution that exemplifies those truths.
