Across the globe, all people have one thing in common: they came from their mother. Though not everyone’s circumstances are the same, this fact has been in existence for the same amount of time man has. While this remains the same, times do change and with change often come conflict. The world is now medically capable to provide abortions to mothers who deem it necessary. By definition, an abortion is “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy”. Two sides have formed in this debate, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, each creating their own definitions and ideas of what it means to have an abortion thereby causing a conflict of whether termination should be allowed or not. Now, neither side sees abortion as a ‘good’ thing, so why are the sides so polar opposite? The abortion debate has been alive and well for many years now and there does not seem to be an end in sight. With history dating back to over 60 years ago, the political aspect of the debate, each side’s strict views of abortion, and the way they both go about trying to ‘win’, the potential of ever finding a common ground or a correct answer is highly unlikely. 

Anyone who has prior knowledge about this political and moral issue would agree that there was a certain starting point in the debate; that starting point, they believe, is Roe v. Wade. But what they fail to do is consider what happened before January 22nd, 1973. In order to bring something to court there had to be a spark that started the fire before hand. According to Michael Taylor, who is the executive direction of the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, the spark for the abortion debate was ignited as early as the 1950s, a fact that can be agreed upon no matter which side one stands with. (Rovner, “Roe V. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older”). Women who were seeking the right to an abortion began to speak up and question how it was legal to withhold them from terminating pregnancies. Many times, if they were caught terminating pregnancy against the law, they were interrogated to tell who helped them terminate rather than getting arrested. With the women of this country, many of the people fighting for change were in the medical field and the American Law Institute, both of which were primarily males. Journalist for the New York Times and professor Linda Greenhouse states that these groups, “looked at the regime of criminal abortion laws that were driving women to back alleys and were putting doctors in legal jeopardy if they acted in what they considered to be the best interests of their patients” (Rovner, “Roe V. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older”). Pregnant women, doctors, lawyers, and judges all came together to start asking questions and press for answers and it worked to an extent. According to David O’Steen, by the late 1960’s, 38% of the states had started to legalize abortion not just for the safety of the other, but for cases of rape, incest, and if the fetus was not well (Rovner, “Roe V. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older”). It was not until 1973 though that the Supreme Court became invested in this critical issue. The court decided in a 7-2 ruling that it was a woman’s constitutional right to choose to abort their fetus under the right to privacy provided by the Fourteenth Amendment (“Roe v. Wade Fast Facts”). This is where the debate truly picked up and people began to become more divided. Now, over 60 years since the argument truly began, citizens of this country still disagree on whether claiming that the right to an abortion falls under the ‘privacy’ part of the constitution. The abortion debate stemmed from a multitude of different finding and opinions that appeared over time, so who is to say that the future of the debate won’t cause more findings leading to more division? Even Jane Roe, who was the plaintiff on the case, changed her side on the debate from pro-choice to pro-life. The debate is forever going to be present and there is always going to be a calm before the storm. In 2015 for example, the debate had been resting until suddenly it was brought back to life again by the releasing of video footage. This footage was of Deborah Nucatola having a detailed discussion about the way fetus tissue is harvested after abortion: “Nucatola describes how the fetus is crushed above and below to obtain the best quality organs” (“Planned Parenthood Controversy Revives Abortion Debate”). Other footage was released with this video in which Planned Parenthood officials are portrayed to be selling the fetal tissue for cash (“Planned Parenthood Controversy Revives Abortion Debate”). These made the two sides of the abortion debate have even more to argue about. It was now in question whether or not this could influence the mother to have an abortion and if it is ethical to use aborted fetal tissue for research. Discoveries like this are what could cause people to change their minds and continuing arguing. It is inevitable that as time goes on, change happens, not only in the discoveries of new abortion facts but in people’s opinions as well. 

Opinions are a major part of the social aspects of everyday life, but they also hold a huge portion of the political field and practices. Political parties all have a set of general beliefs that their side holds. Ideas on abortion carry over to both the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats are seen to lean to the Pro-Choice side and fight for a woman’s right to choose. Republicans tend to lean the opposite way and are more Pro-Life. The abortion controversy has created en even bigger fight between the two political parties and their followers, leading to strong accusations and assumptions. Democrats now see Republicans as people who choose to ignore the facts of the situation and Republicans view the Democrats as people who choose to ignore the rights of the baby. (Shaw, “Becoming a Mother Made Me Even More Pro-Choice”). Everywhere people use the terms ‘Pro-Life or Choice and Republican/Democrat’ like they are interchangeable. But just like not every Catholic is going to be Pro-Life, not every Democrat or Republican is going to stick to their ‘correct’ opinion on the matter. Many politicians who were Republican believed more in abortion rights than Democrats at one point (Rovner, “Roe V. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older”). Politicians make all of their moves based off what the people want to hear and have been for decades. Republican President Nixon, for example, during his re-election switched his platform in order to get more votes: “His aides, including future Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, waned to lure Northern Catholic voters, who had traditionally voted Democratic, over to the Republican Party” (Rovner, “Roe V. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older”). If political candidates who represent their party can change sides just to benefit their own campaign, how can one tell what they truly believe in? Just like them this question can be asked for any Republican or Democrat who claims a side on the abortion debate. Mitchel Killian and Clyde Wilcox did a study on this idea and found that abortion attitudes did sway people from one party to the other and that Democrats were almost 5x more likely to do so than Republicans (Killian, “Do Abortion Attitudes Lead to Party Switching”). This is why using politics to support or add to this controversial topic is not going to get it any closer to being resolved. It just leaves room for more argument and hatred between the two sides. Those who are especially opinionated on the matter will accuse their democratic friends of being pro-choice even if they are pro-life, creating unnecessary drama and forever continuing the abortion rights battle. 

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups have a pretty airtight seal on what they define abortion as. Pro-Life groups are working towards eliminating the option of abortion and saving babies, who cannot speak for themselves. They believe life begins at conception; therefore, it is murder to abort a baby. Pro-Life groups also argue that abortion causes pain for the fetus while the procedure is happening and emotional pain for the mother afterwards (“Should Abortion Be Legal”). This emotional pain they believe occurs is called PASS or post-abortion stress syndrome (Baker, “Pro-Voice: A Vision for the Future”). Though their views are against terminating pregnancy, there are some who are Pro-Life but would allow abortions for extreme circumstances such as rape or incest (“Should Abortion Be Legal”). Pro-Choice followers believe that life begins after birth and that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion should not be prevented by the government. They use ‘choice’ as their way to pull in and appeal to Americans while the Pro-Life groups use more of an emotional approach to tug at American’s heart strings (Baker, “Pro-Voice: A Vision for the Future”). The group recognizes the extreme responsibility that comes with parenthood and how being able to choose to have an abortion can save a child from a life where their parents cannot provide or care for them properly (Shaw, “Becoming A Mother Made Me Even More Pro-Choice). According to Stacey Nelkin, the two sides opposition can be shown directly through what they believe to be ‘sacred’. While the Pro-Life side views the unborn child as ‘sacred’, the Pro-Choice sides views the right to choose as ‘sacred’ (Nelkin, “Why Pro-Choice Is a Sacred Choice”). The difficult part of this debate is recognizing the differences between what is right versus what is wrong and who is right versus who is wrong. There is no set definition for when life begins so for both sides that is hard to argue; however, both sides do have strong enough points to keep people divided. There are people who believe in finding a way to depolarize the debate, such as Aspen Baker. Baker believes that Pro-Voice can be an option for the future. Her idea is to have both sides put aside their personal beliefs and focus on the mother’s right to feel, whether it’s making a decision about abortion or after receiving an abortion (Baker, “Pro-Voice: A Vision for the Future”). Though Baker’s idea of both sides transforming to become Pro-Voice is a fantastic idea, it is simply unrealistic. Each side is so close-minded on their ideals and opinions that they are completely blind to the idea of even attempting to find middle ground. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice will not stop until they receive the answer they want to hear. Coming up with compromises and new laws is not going to change that. 

  The two polarized groups in this debate take aggressive approaches when it comes to getting their voices heard. It has moved past pushing just for the government’s attention. Professor Alesha Doan says how the sides both are pushing to get the attention of the abortion clinics and their employees (Doan, “Opposition And Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies Of Political Harassment”). Pro-Choice groups often will make themselves available to clinics to help volunteer and support not only the woman who are receiving the abortions, but also the doctors who are giving them. Pro-Life groups use abortion clinics as their way to get in the heads of the people going to the clinics and the people who work there. Doan explains this as, “Confrontational anti-abortion tactics are aimed at nongovernmental actors and are an attempt to elicit an immediate response from them” (Doan, “Opposition And Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies Of Political Harassment”). She says how the Pro-Life groups also see it as an opportunity to get support “from sympathetic politicians and shape public opinion”. Using political harassment like the Pro-Life side does is extremely effective towards their campaign because they only have to focus on small victories. It also most likely causes an emotional response from the Pro-Life side, angering them and creating new levels of tension and separation between the two sides. Doan came to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that a compromise can be found between the two sides. The political harassment causes too much aggression and distracts the sides from looking for a settling point. Instead, it directs them towards just proving their point as strongly as they possibly can. The Pro-Life side is no longer trying to reduce abortion rates and the Pro-Choice side cannot just sit back and watch abortion clinics be torn apart. Doan states, “Unless Roe is overturned, it is unlikely that groups will move away from engaging in confrontational tactics at abortion clinics” (Doan, “Opposition And Intimidation: The Abortion Wars and Strategies Of Political Harassment”), and she is correct. If it is beneficial to their campaign, Pro-Life groups will continue to use direct confrontation as their weapon of choice and Pro-Life groups will continue to need to get involved. The chances of Roe being overturned are not impossible, but extremely slim. As Leo H. Kahane states, “Both sides have attempted to affect legislation and the politicians’ views on legal abortion” (Kahane, “Anti-Abortion Activities and the Market for Abortion Services: Protest as a Disincentive”). They both have yet to be successful and have become impatient enough to begin using other tactics. The more impatient each side gets the less of a chance that they are going to want to take the time to find a common ground that could possibly end the debate and the more time they will spend pushing their opposite beliefs and ideas.

The abortion debate has been around for more than half a century. This political and social argument exists solely between the two polar sides of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, both of which make important points about abortion and have their own ideas and beliefs. They both can agree on one thing: abortion is not a good thing; however, this is their only agreement to date. Pro-Life believers see abortion as a murder and an unethical thing to do. Pro-Choice followers focus less on the death of the fetus (which they believe is not considered a life until it is born) and more on the right to be able to choose whether carrying through with pregnancy is the right option for each individual’s situation.  The end of the debate between these two sides is nowhere in sight. With history of this argument dating back to the mid 1900s, it is clear that time does not affect the great opposition that has unfolded. The future leaves room for even more new discoveries and ideas. One day that discovery could be the answer to solving the debate but it is too unpredictable to tell. In the mean time, new information will just leave room for more questions and could help or hurt each side. Conflict from this and conflict that is already present are in no way going to help the sides focus on finding a common ground, especially since tensions are rising from the tactics being used on both sides and there is more of a want to ‘win’ the debate and take the opposite side down. The abortion debate will continue to prevail until something changes in the minds of the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides where they will have a want and/or need to come up with a statement, idea, or action that pleases everyone. 
