Abortion: A Human Right

Opinion

Thumbnail photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash

The recent overturn of Roe V. Wade has proved, almost certainly, the need for the advocacy of the legalisation of abortion, especially when many believed the time had come when we no longer needed to remind ourselves that women’s rights are human rights.

The abortion debate creates a divide between those who, due to religious or other personal beliefs, oppose the termination of pregnancies and those who believe that it is fundamentally wrong to deny women the right to decide.

According to international human rights law, abortion is a ‘basic healthcare need’ for women, as stated by Amnesty International, implying that all women should have access to safe and affordable procedures no matter their wealth, social class, race, or position on the globe, should they want or need it - the choice should always be theirs.

Initial observation of the ongoing battle between ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ advocates might make the argument seem unambiguous but it is extremely nuanced as it deals with many types of oppression, intersectional issues, and with difficult questions such as the time when life begins. Ultimately, the debate is about whether a foetus’ right to life outweighs that of a woman or pregnant person. It is necessary to clarify here that, generally, people are not in favour of abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, but rather, demonstrates the belief in women having the right to decide over their bodies. (Undergoing an abortion is obviously not something anyone would hope to do in their lifetime.)

In the future there may be the possibility of using cryogenics to prevent abortions but allow women to still terminate unwanted pregnancies. This would see embryos, foetuses, or zygotes being removed and cryogenically frozen and then potentially donated to those wanting to have a family but unable to conceive. However, this poses many questions as to who would finance the storing of the foetuses/embryos/zygotes and whether the state would be willing to assist in the funding of such programmes. Currently though, medically authorised abortion is the only safe procedure for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

While international human rights law recognises the need for abortion to be available to women through qualified medical providers, many are still against the legalisation of the procedure.  Self-deemed “pro-life” advocates attempt to support their stance through a multitude of reasons. Many pro-lifers argue that life begins at conception and that the foetus is a human with the right to not be killed and this supersedes the rights of the woman carrying the foetus, as she is responsible for supporting the life inside of her until the foetus is ready to be born. Although scientists can determine when biological life starts, a scientific consensus as to when personhood begins is yet to be reached. A foetus, zygote, or embryo has the potential to become a person, but is not a person yet. The potential for personhood is not the same as existing personhood. In no other instance do we equate potential with reality. The law does not give rights to potential beings (for example children are not given the right to vote simply due to their potential to become adults).

While it often appears as though this topic creates a divide between feminists and anti-choice activists, some anti-choice advocates support their stance with a feminist argument.

Some pro-lifers believe that the legalisation of abortion is deeply unfair & offensive to all women, arguing that it essentially undermines the real issue at hand. They accuse patriarchal forces (pointing to the 1973 Roe vs Wade legislation which legalised abortion in the first trimester, voted so by seven Supreme Court judges - all of whom were men) and claim that abortion is another way for men to hold control over women. They argue that abortion is not so much an empowering act for women but that it is an act forced ahead by denial and ignorance. They think that abortion is testament to centuries of neglect of womenkind leading to the insufficient support for women to be able to have a baby any time they become pregnant. Those of this persuasion plead that the lack of support is the real nemesis, not the denial of a women’s prerogative.

Whilst the significant lack of pre- and post-natal care for mothers in society merits the discussion of comprehensive reproductive justice as an area in need of reform and investment, I do not believe this argument justifies taking away women’s access to abortion. There are social, financial, environmental and career issues which might influence whether a woman wishes to have a child (and - not all necessarily a direct product of society’s misogyny over the years). It is certain that the oppression of women over the generations has contributed to a lack of support for mothers which is an issue that needs to be addressed but there are other reasons why women might not want to or cannot continue a pregnancy, which are equally valid and do not contribute further to the oppression of women. Why should we take away a woman’s autonomy today when the very thing we are trying to do is allow women to reclaim power as individuals worthy of human rights in society?

More generally, the feminist argument to ban abortion is not logically sound as it fails to recognise that withholding this essential medical service would mean that women today would still be being oppressed by others, which goes against the very core of the argument itself (reflecting the irony that is commonplace in many an anti-choice argument in my view). It seems obvious that today, there are undeniable problems in society in terms of patriarchal power, but this should not continue to hinder women where it does not have to. The prioritisation of women’s health not only includes comprehensive reproductive reform, but also access to safe and legal abortions.

The importance of giving women autonomy cannot be denied. Pro-choice advocation recognises that the woman is the one who will carry the pregnancy to term, give birth, and either look after the child, or bear the trauma of pregnancy, childbirth and then parting with the child in the case of adoption; so, she should be able to make the choice to carry or terminate the pregnancy. The reasons someone might feel unable to give birth or care for a child are varied and in some cases those with unplanned pregnancies feel that the most compassionate action is to terminate the pregnancy.

Many pro-lifers argue that having the chance of a poorer quality of life compared with no life at all is better, but when considering the risks such as overcrowding in the foster system, psychological issues in adulthood, and identity queries, as well as many other issues which could negatively affect both parties’ quality of life, it ultimately has to be up to the mother whether she decides to accept these risks for the unborn child and herself.

Studies have shown that children born to parents who were denied abortion have poorer life outcomes, as evidenced by the Turnaway Study conducted by Dr Greene Foster, which found women ‘more likely to maintain contact with abusive intimate partners’ and having ‘faced more economic hardships’ as well as ‘increases in household poverty in the years following the denial’. Concurrently, women who were forced to give birth were shown to be liable to suffer homelessness and extreme poverty with the study saying they were ‘more likely to be evicted from their housing, file for bankruptcy, and become unemployed’ as stated by the National Organisation for Women Foundation.

Moreover, the quality of life is poorer for BAME/BIPOC, differently-abled and lgbtqia+ individuals who were unwanted children. Coincidentally, anti-abortion activists tend to care less about the issues faced by these groups. This raises the question: How can a “pro-life” standpoint be used, when only unborn life matters?

In the US for example, the states with the strongest abortion restrictions are also the states with the highest infant mortality rates, lowest restrictions on guns, lowest support for medical programmes and programmes to support children living in poverty. This again raises the question: does life only matter if you are a foetus, embryo, or zygote; but not if you are an infant, child, woman, or pregnant person?

From a woman’s point of view the risks and strain on the body associated with pregnancy and childbirth can lead to long-term health complications and in some cases death. When women do not have access to legal abortion and want to have one, they are being forced, against their will, to give use of multiple organs to support another life. Meanwhile, even the dead must have given their consent while alive in order to be organ donors.

Furthermore, minimising this deeply nuanced debate down to the simple terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ can be dehumanising for women. It is crucial to note that many support the right to choose, whilst being anti-abortion in theory, because each situation presents unique and highly personal issues. If a woman was raped, for example, everything should be done to minimise the horrific aftermath, if that is the choice of the victim.

Sexual assault survivors are at a higher risk of trauma related physical and psychological risk factors and chronic conditions during pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum. Rape survivors are at a higher risk of suicide and children born of rape also face trauma and adverse childhood experiences. 

Whilst rape is clearly a reason for many women choosing to have an abortion, it is not the only reason. There are serious physical and mental health risks associated with all pregnancies and forced pregnancy and birth has been shown to negatively impact mental health outcomes even in later life, years after the event.

Subsequently, we must be careful to not use rape as a cornerstone of the argument for the right to choose as it reinforces the idea that having consensual sex comes at the cost of loss of bodily autonomy. Instead, we should recognise that pregnant people have an unquestionable right to bodily autonomy and strive for holistic reproductive justice for all.

When pro-lifers support abortion only in the case of rape, they are implying that women only have rights over their bodies if their bodies have been violated. Furthermore, when pro-lifers state that abortion is a punishment for an innocent child in the cases of rape, it completely ignores the trauma the women and girls can suffer because of carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and caring for a child after being raped.

It is important to consider, while the abortion debate continues, that the fact remains that the anti-abortion movement does not stop millions of women every year from needing or wanting the procedure carried out. In fact, criminalising abortion does more harm than it supposedly prevents. Every year 25 million unsafe abortions take place, many resulting in disability or even death. Many women resort to using unqualified providers; black market medications; or intentionally hurting themselves by falling, attempting to self-administer the procedure or committing suicide. This accounts for unsafe abortions being one of the leading causes of maternal mortality.

Essentially, criminalisation of abortion is discrimination against women; discrimination in the form of denial of medical services which only women or persons with the ability to give birth need. This has a knock-on effect on increasing the amount of stigma attached to seeking and having an abortion. This stigmatisation of both elective and medically necessary abortions can force women to have no choice but to turn to having a backstreet abortion following the absence of medical authorisation.

From a human rights standpoint, abortion is a basic healthcare need for women and girls all over the world, regardless of social class, race, or wealth. Reality serves the truth that unless many more countries change their laws to allow for abortion and break down barriers such as cost, biased counselling, and long waiting periods for abortions then women will continue to die unnecessarily.

It is paramount that women who need or want an abortion have access to safe, legal, and affordable abortion, not just to protect their rights as individuals but to reinforce the consensus that women’s rights will prevail over social, financial, and legal hurdles.

It is fundamental that we work towards holistic reproductive justice, including access to education, contraception, and safe sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion. It is further essential that if women choose to have an abortion, they receive dependable support before, during and after the procedure takes place.

Women should be treated with integrity throughout the procedure - free from harassment, degrading treatment and/or emotional abuse. Regardless of whether this exploitation is coming from internalised sexism, religious belief, familial relations, or politics, it is completely unacceptable and frankly irrelevant to a woman’s decisions about her body. 

I genuinely feel that women’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes any moral fixation regarding ownership of life being a separate issue from the carrier of life’s right to mental, physical, and spiritual well-being!