When the construct of morality descends into the abortion debate, it becomes obvious that this is where the pro-choice arguments lack. Even though the stance of pro-choice is much more respectable and logical than anti-choice, pro-choicers have taken a back seat to the issue of morality within the debate of abortion, giving way to anti-choice rhetoric with little retaliation.

Vocabulary of the Debate

Pro-choice advocates tend to continuously make the same mistake of utilizing vocabulary generated by conservatives.

The obvious problem with this debate is the vocabulary that has been defined for both parties. The first rule of any debate is that each side needs a proper label and each must have their respective position titles that affirm or repudiate the given proposition. In this case, the argument supposed is not one of life, but rather one of choice. The argument is not pro-life vs. anti-life but rather pro-choice vs. anti-choice. The euphemism “pro-life” replaces the true title of the argument “anti-choice,” and is an emotional appeal to the collective’s opinion rather than a blanket statement for the ideology they confess to suppose. The emotionally charged “morals” imbedded in the term “pro-life” will trump the lacking relationship between morality and choice.

In the same vein, as George Lakoff from AlterNet asserts, the term “choice” lacks morality, as it is derived from consumerism, while “abortion” indicates a connotation of flight or termination due to a negative action, such as in the phrase “abort the mission” or “abort a computer program.” While the term abortion signifies the expulsion of something, which is a realistic part of the definition, it also generates a negative pretense. Even if most women who choose abortion do not immediately perceive it as a positive experience, it does render constructive results per capita. For example, a 40 year-old woman with two teenagers who has a rocky marriage and finds herself pregnant will not need to start her life over again at the hands of an unintended pregnancy (especially when adoption is not seen as an option to those who are pregnant).

Legality and Morality

Under American law, the developing do not have more rights than the existing; thus, the battle of abortion is about giving the women with unintended pregnancies or those pregnancies with fetal anomalies the choice to “bear or beget a child” (1972 case Eisenstadt v Baird). Of course, this still says little about the line between law and morality. In truth, Americans would like to believe that their lawmakers are constructing legislation based on moral principles, but this begs the question as to the exact morality of keeping abortion legal. Pro-choicers in general, but especially Democratic representatives, have, for so long, believed abortion would always be a right, and this has permitted anti-choicers to back the abstract theory and concrete experience of the freedom of abortion into a corner. They now have the upper hand in the battle, forcing pro-choicers to defend, rather than accept, the right of abortion as a legal freedom. Pro-choice should not be a movement steeped in defense. No one should need to defend the right to have reproductive choice, and yet liberals are now in that position thanks to both apathy on their part and the logical fallacies of “morality” on the conservatives’.

Morality is a mental construct designed to bring meaning to the actions of human beings as well as value to the objects they perceive; what most people fail to understand is that morality is a pragmatic concept, not a universal one. Morality, just as law, is innately “what works” and “what does not work,” rather than what is “right” and what is “wrong.” When slavery “worked” (for the lawmakers), it was law because it helped the economy. When it “did not work,” (for the majority) it was branded illegal.

The “morality” imbedded in anti-choice rhetoric is one of a faulty nature. While most people consider murder immoral, there are varying degrees of murder, which is why anti-choicers tend to parallel first degree murder, infanticide, and abortion, claiming if the former 2 of these are morally wrong, the third must be as well. As part of the parallel, some people view the developing embryo/fetus as a human since it has individual DNA separate from the mother’s. There is no doubt that the fetus is separate from the mother or that it is human, but what becomes a conflict of interest for both sides is whether or not the fetus has “the right to life.”

If taken care of by the mother throughout its gestation, the fetus will become an independent human, but until viability, the fetus is not physically separate from the mother and thus depends on her for development. Until viability, the mother has the right to choose to deny independence to the developing fetus. In other words, the mother has the right to prevent viability, which results from an elective abortion (I will not use the term miscarriage here, as those are usually spontaneous). This moral decision, regardless of the rationale supporting the choice, is necessary for women to continue their lives in a productive and healthy manner.

However, regardless of any personal reasons, and seeing as how it is not legally possible to deny certain women access to abortion based through personal conclusions made from a “good enough story,” it is immoral and unlawful to restrict and deny abortion access. The medical and legal fields should not play favorites. To deny a woman reproductive rights is simultaneously expressing a view that she is not allowed to control certain objects that might grow inside her own body or have access to contemporary medical technology, thus losing control over her life. It is moral to allow people to make conscientious medical decisions based on all facts possible, including risks, alternatives, and the latest technological advancements, especially in terms of elective surgery. Also, it is imperative that the government trusts women to make moral personal choices about reproduction, which include (but are not limited to): contraception, adoption, abortion, and parenting.

Conclusion

The true morality of abortion lies in the informed consent of the pregnant woman as well as her cognizant ability to make the best decision both for herself and those around her. This social aspect of morality allows the woman time to think about her decision and its impact on both her emotional and physical states as well as her relationships with others. In her personal morality, which involves her spirituality as well, the woman must sift through her beliefs and feelings until she feels morally justified in having the procedure; this can take weeks or it can take seconds after seeing a plus sign or two blue lines. Every case is different.

Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, but it should never be a punishment. Conversely, this is occurring through conservative or so-called “pro-life” ideology. By attempting to make abortion illegal and inaccessible, these “pro-life” proponents are advocating for forced pregnancy, almost as if pregnancy and children should be a punishment for having sex, regardless of whether the sex was consensual in nature. It is immoral to force a woman to carry to term or have an abortion regardless of the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. To add insult to injury, “street counselors” (read: protestors) outside of clinics intimidate those seeking the private medical procedure of abortion by name–calling and coercion through propaganda, or by passively offering false promises of assistance.

It is moral to accept the notion of this choice being personal and often heartrending in nature. Its complexity is astounding. Society must offer all options to all people so that the patient can make the best decision for her and those she affects at that time in her life. To refuse access to abortion is to promote the immorality of forcing someone to do something that is not beneficial for her/himself rather than allowing a patient privacy to make a personal medical decision. To usurp someone else’s authority over his/her own body is violating, and that is immoral.