Pro-life Vs Pro-choice: Pro-voice

One of the most controversial topics in the past couple of years is abortion. This topic has been brought to the Supreme Court by Roe v. Wade in America and to the Supreme Court in Canada during R v. Morgentaler. Since Roe v. Wade, many cases have been judged under that decision. From then, women have been judged and forced to do what the law says even if the law significantly decreases her chances of receiving a healthy and safe abortion. We frequently talk about these restrictive abortion laws and the sides of this debate, pro-life and pro-choice. We talk about statistics, but never why the two sides exist. We talk about opinions, but never let people feel comfortable in speaking their mind. Both sides believe they are correct and never give the option to see what the other has to say. To clarify, many conservative people choose to believe that every life deserves a chance to live and that abortion is ultimately murder. On the other hand, many liberals believe women should have the choice to abort and that it is not considered murder because the fetus does not feel pain. Each side believes that they have better morals on this topic which means they could never peacefully exist together, but we have the capability of accomplishing this with time and patience. I believe, along with author, Aspen Baker, that we can lead our country to a harmonious compromise where “Pro-life people can support the legal right to have an abortion and pro-choice people can hope for a world free of the need for abortion”.

When we’re looking at how severe the issue of abortion has become we have to ask why this divide between pro-life and pro-choice exists. Pro-choice individuals are for the legal right to have an abortion where as the pro-life individuals are against this legal right. From the pro-choice standpoint, an individuals reasonings could be anything from protections of the mother or the simple fact of women should have the right to their own bodies. However, from the pro-life standpoint, their reasonings are that life begins at conception and to end that life is essentially murder. In January of 2017, Planned Parenthood funded The Women’s March on Washington and around the world. Many people went to protest the election of Donald J. Trump. The protestors hoped to raise awareness about a variety of issues that they believed President Trump would be unable to handle. These issues included: “reproductive rights, equal pay, affordable health care, (and) action on climate change”. These protesters were backed by Planned Parenthood which is an organization that believes completely in the pro-choice movement. They included a variety of people in their march but decided against pro-life protesters to be included because of what Planned Parenthood stands for. This is why there is a divide in this debate. Pro-choice individuals and organizations do not want to be involved with anyone who is pro-life. This goes the same for pro-life individuals with pro-choice individuals. It seems that one side cannot live with the other even though they both fight for women’s rights.

We’ve made it virtually impossible for both sides to exist in our country but there is also no room for any scenarios that may fit into both sides. This silences more voices than it allows to speak. This is why Aspen Baker’s solution of “pro-voice” is very influential because it gives more individuals the opportunity to speak out about their experiences. It also solves the idea that this debate is “political and polarizing” which Baker talks about in her TED Talk called “A Better Way to Talk About Abortion”. She also claims that this new “pro-voice” movement would “allow the people on each side to feel that their values are respected throughout the country and they are not deprived of practicing any part of their beliefs” (Baker 1). I think this movement is the proper compromise for this debate because it allows people to speak their sides without being forced to change their thinking. Along with this, it allows individuals to not be silenced by others with opposing views.