I think in the “pro-life vs. pro-choice” argument something is taken for granted, if not completely overlooked.
Someone who is pro-choice is portrayed as someone in favor of the woman’s right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus.
However, I don’t think any woman, regardless of political affiliation or moral beliefs, would take such a decision any less seriously than a woman of the opposite beliefs.
I feel that the archetypal rightist argument that abortion is abhorrent really only addresses one facet of the issue.
If we were to hypothetically outlaw abortion, the only thing it would change is the legality of the procedure. The demand for abortions would remain, and if they were no longer legal, many women would be forced to endure the agony and danger of back-alley abortions.
In that case, the fetus will die, but so too does the mother – more often than not because of either massive blood loss or infection.
If the ultimate goal behind the religious right’s argument is saving lives, then we would actually save more lives by keeping abortion clean and legal.
If we brand it as a simple choice between good and evil, we devalue the issue. The factors that cause unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are societal and economic ones.
To end the need for abortion, these issues need to be addressed, because if we simply outlaw abortion, we’re only chopping one head off the proverbial hydra.
– Ian Zulick
