Pro-choice means you hate babies!” “Pro-life means you believe a woman has no choice in what she can do with her body!” The arguments go on and on. Abortion has been a long-standing ethical dilemma without a true solution and still remains amongst one of the most controversial issues in America. When trying to understand these social and political positions of whether or not an individual is for or against abortion, clarification in language is an interesting factor to consider. Because of language, often times, it is hard to reach an agreement. Language? Really, language? Yes. An aspect as small as language can often times make it harder for a general consensus to be reached because of the conflict it creates between opposing sides. For instance, someone who is pro-choice may believe that someone who is pro-life only believes that women do not have a right to their own bodies. Vice versa, someone who is pro-life may believe that someone who is pro-choice is a cold blooded murderer. Essentially this creates a sort of language barrier which is attributed to why each side of the argument finds it difficult to solving this ethical dilemma such as creating a definite law which bans or allows abortion.
Before delving into the parameters and constraints which language creates, one must understand the background of the argument which abortion presents. In addition to language barriers, there are many other factors which contribute to the abortion argument. These factors include religion as well as society. Religion is often times the driving factor behind the background of those who claim to be pro-life. Understanding the religious aspect will also help in understanding the impact of language use. In Roman Catholicism, the belief is that human life begins that the moment of conception. Therefore, at this very moment, it is believed that a child is considered a human being. However, those who are pro-choice believe that a woman has the ability to exercise her right to her own body. These contradicting beliefs cause tension between both sides due to the conflicting expression of how they explain their position. Pro-life supporters believe that a fetus is an innocent human being. Therefore, it is morally, as well as ethically wrong, to kill an innocent human being This apparent divide between the opposing beliefs of whether or not it is morally wrong to kill a fetus as well as when a fetus is considered a human comes into question.
In trying to understand this complicated, unresolved issue, it is important to understand both sides of the argument. Each side makes compelling arguments towards their position. These arguments are coupled with strong supporting claims such as mentioning the safety of the mother or even the mother’s freedom of choice. As a result, it makes it more difficult to come to a resolution. Pro-life supporters argue against abortion and all that it stands for. Meanwhile, on the opposing side, those who are considered pro-choice are not totally opposed to establishing abortion as a law. Between both instances, the language used to describe each side’s position, as well as to communicate their ideas, may sometimes cause a sort of cloudy explanation between both stances on the issue.
“Pro-choice means you hate babies!” But is this necessarily the case? Supporter of pro-choice believe that a woman is entitled to the rights of her body. One may even argue that “Abortion is not the killing of the fetus. Rather it is the separation of the fetus from the mother” (Kaczor, 1969). Pro-choice supporters believe that a fetus does not achieve personhood until the fetus has actually been delivered from the mother’s womb (Seipel, 2014). Now, this statement, based on its word choice in communicating the author’s view can either convince or anger the opposing side. Those who are supporters of pro-life may think that supporters of pro-choice view fetuses as “disposable goods” (Callahan and Daniel, 2000). This suggests the severity and importance of how the language used to describe an opposing side can lead to heavier animosity or stronger content towards the opposing position. This creates an even more difficult time in understanding both sides of the argument, making it harder to create a solution. A possible solution is to look for overlapping ideas between pro-life and pro-choice. Maybe, instead of solely focusing on one side of the argument, a common ground should be discovered. But perhaps one might consider that the reason for the inability to find a solution might be because there is no true overlap between the two ideas. This is where the importance of “language” takes its role. Maybe abortion is actually meant to be a necessary evil. Think about it. No one truly believes in abortion and what it stands for, however, it provides an alternative for an undesired situation (Clack and Lledo-Weber, 2012).
In fact, most people would rather not be involved with abortions. So why is that opposing sides are so quick to consider the extreme? And why is that pro-life supporters automatically assume that those who are pro-choice advocates are instant murderers who do not value the meaning of life? Why is that pro-choice supporters automatically assume that pro-life advocates are inconsiderate of a woman’s right and see them as power hungry dominants who want to control the woman and strip her away from her ability to make decisions best for her situation? When considering ethical dilemmas such as abortion, people often miss menial aspects such as language. They fail to understand that something so small could have a large and lasting impact, and may even shift pre-existing views an individual may have.
“Pro-life means you believe a woman has no choice in what she can do with her body!” Well, not necessarily. Statements and use of language such as this contributes to the cloudiness in understanding both sides to help come to a solution. Those who are pro-life, or against abortion, center their argument around “personhood” of the fetus. (Seipel, 2014). They stand with the idea that at the moment of conception, the fetus becomes a person, therefore, they have the right to life. As a result, they have a moral status which must be respected and observed. Christians make the claim that unborn children, as well as infants and young children, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God because they are unable to choose between right and wrong. Therefore, they cannot fully accept the responsibility for their personal spiritual well-being. In addition, they believe that abortion brings harm to the mother as it causes physical, psychological, spiritual, and moral stress (Contraception, Procreation, and Abortion). Roman Catholicism, which tends to be one of the aspects influencing pro-life beliefs, view any abortion as a sin. However, they view indirect abortion as permissible. This claim does not necessarily lean in support for abortion. The conflicting belief and the language used to describe the terms in which abortion is allowed, although not supported, contributes to the conversation that the language used on both sides of the argument often leads to confusion. The term “personhood” also contributes to the language barrier expressed between both positions. What a pro-life supporter considers as personhood versus that of a pro-choice supporter can be easily confused when not explained with clarity.
A strong instance in which language is shown to play a role in the delineation of each side of the argument is the case in which Alice Clack, a sixth year trainee in obstetrician gynecology infers. She plays with the language of abortion and claims that pro-life is actually making sure that women have ample access to a safe abortion process (Clack and Lledo-Weber, 2012). In fact, through her practice in Liberia with her fellow colleagues, she found that she had treated a total of 110 women in a span of two months who had suffered from miscarriages due to complications from abortions (Clack and Lledo-Weber, 2012). In instances such as this, the language use of “pro-life” and “safe abortions” clash with the common belief of what both pro-life and safe abortions are known to represent. How is it possible that one can associate “pro-life” with “safe abortion”? However, according to Alice Clack’s interpretation, “safe abortion is pro-life” because safe abortions essentially save lives (Clack and Lledo-Weber, 2012). Therefore, there must be a promotion of access to safe services for abortion. It is interesting to think of both, so-called opposing phrases, working with each other. This demonstrates the complexity which language may cause, as well as its interchangeability. The phrases “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can be as interchangeable as they wish. The term “pro-choice” is not required to be exclusively limited to deciding on an abortion due to reasons such as convenience. In fact, the “pro-choice” phrase should be able to be applied in a broader sense in regards to choice.
One might ask, why do we avoid using the term “pro-abortion”? This simple, self-explanatory phrase which can be used to describe the situation actually serves as a harsh description. Think about it—is anyone really in support for abortion? This tricky word play is also another strong, maybe even extreme instance in which the role of language can be influential as it may ultimately be detrimental especially in trying to find a clear, plausible solution for the dilemma. Such a harsh phrase such as “pro-abortion” indicates a lot more simply through the words used.
There is somewhat of a common ground, however, despite such conflicting sides. For instance, a major common ground they share is when abortion is deemed permissible. Pro-life believers only accept abortions in the instances of incest, if a woman is raped, and when the life of the woman is endangered by the birth of the child (Thomas, 2016). Many Christians admit that these are moral exceptions in which abortion is to be considered. However, there are still some Christians who have petitioned to pregnancy centers to present alternatives such as providing counseling to women who sought abortion as a result of these cases (Thomas, 2016). An action so simple as this shows the severity of the issue of abortion and how both sides are willing to take extreme measures in order for their stance to prevail. This creates even more of a barrier in reaching a common ground. In cases of opposing views there will always be an instance where contradictions may arise to prevent a common ground to be reached. Essentially language, as well as how it is used in describing the situation, becomes important.
Although both sides of the argument may accept the terms of abortion and may very well discover common ground in certain instances and cases, there will forever remain the argument of when life truly begins. This factor seems to be the true wedge driving a force between both positions. The lack of understanding on both sides of describing when life truly begins can be attributed to the type of language and how it is phrased. For example, an individual who is pro-life claims that life begins at the moment of conception, while an individual who is pro-choice may believe that life begins once the fetus is capable of working successfully or when the baby has been born. This language of when life begins creates a strong barrier to finding a solution. Individuals on both sides find it hard to come to terms about when life truly begins which essentially hinders on the success of formulating a law.
The complications of language between supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice create even more confusion when trying to create a beneficial solution. It will always feel like one side will be unhappy if a solution is created because of the way in which their ideas are communicated. Each opposing side has ideas which clash and there seems to be no happy medium. For this reason, abortion will continue to remain such an unresolvable as well as controversial debate as it seems that both sides of the argument are not willing to compromise. In order to come to a common understanding, both sides must fully understand the terms as well as the way in which they express their beliefs. It is through language that even a small compromise might be reached. Both positions should not focus on what is nonnegotiable, but rather they should focus their time, as well as energy, on the common ground they share. By analyzing how they express their beliefs they may find that they actually have more in common than they think.