Pro-Life V.S Pro-Choice and Politics at Large — Tension at the Women’s March 2021
TW/CW: Conversations about abortion, images of late term abortions, strong language pictured.
The ideologically opposed stances on abortion are no secret in American politics and the social justice conversations that follow. Debates over the value of a fetus, bodily autonomy, women’s rights and more are oddly some of the most partisan policy topics voters are faced with today.
This piece seeks to explore the following: Why are conversations on abortion so commonly divisive? Is it possible to find compromise and does either party want it? Furthermore, how do the competing sides fare in terms of the ideological majority? How does the conversation on abortion relate to our political climate today?
Let’s explore all of the above, beginning with an examination of an event that brought both pro-life and pro-choice protestors to the table — the Women’s March 2021.
This year, the Women’s March, with a claim to fame in 2017 protesting the election of Donald Trump, took to the streets once again. Now, in 2021, they seek to combat abortion restrictions being adopted by state legislatures nationwide.
The most popular among such recent advancements is the passing of SB8 in Texas which bans the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected. That’s around the six week mark in a pregnancy, however most women don’t realize they are pregnant until around six weeks or even after, allowing little time for them to act preemptively. Further outrage broke out discovering the same law incentivizes laymen citizens to report those who assist pregnant persons seek an abortion. The reward for a successful bounty? A minimum of $10,000. With similar legislation passing in more conservative states, pro-choice activists led the herd towards the Capitol, hoping for federal action to block these major restrictions.
I attended this year’s march as one of thousands who gathered in the heart of the nation for the event. The mantra of “my body, my choice” cried throughout the march in spurts. Popular signs included bold letters of support for those who have had an abortion and messages to the government at large:
“I love someone who had an abortion.”
“Now we’re Ruthless” in reference to the loss of consistently pro-choice justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in 2020, now replaced by conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
“Your reason is the right reason.”
“Mind your own uterus.”
It was no surprise, then, to see the vocal counter offensive. Anti-abortion advocates, shielded by Capitol Police and metal fences, chanted against the pro-choice marchers, “Hey hey, ho ho! Roe V Wade has got to go!” Signs included:
“Women’s Rights Begin at Conception”
“The Future is Anti-Abortion”
“The Baby’s Body Isn’t Yours”
Signs flying in the air included grotesque images of late term abortions.
One marcher standing next to me asked around, “Where were they on January 6th,” in reference to the wall of Capitol officers, “Why are they here now?” PC and PL below refer to the shouting contest that took place at the March between pro-choice and pro-life groups, respectively.
PC: “Pro-life? Where’s your mask!”
PL: “Abortion hurts women! Women deserve better!”
PC: “Shame on you!”
PL: “Pro women! Pro life!”
Organizers of the March, desperate to end the shouting contest, begged marchers to ignore counter protestors’ instigations and keep marching forward. To no avail, the insults were flying back and forth in what could be characterized as nothing short of trying to overshadow one another’s cries for justice.
So what does this seemingly unending, ever-partisan debate look like moving into the future? In my view, more division is imminent. The standoff depicted in the short video above is a microcosm of the larger nationwide abortion debate as it exists between pro-choice & pro-life Americans. Characterized by new generations of humanist, pro-choice, social justice oriented progressives and their lively evangelical, pro-life conservative counterparts, the debate is unlikely to end with agreeable compromise.
But that’s just the thing — neither side wants compromise, and understandably so.
Abortion is an issue where “agreeable compromise” is practically non-existent. One either allows for abortion or makes it illegal. One either expands abortion rights or restricts them. Fundamentally, one either believes the fetus is a life worth protecting or one believes it’s collateral damage compared to the rights of the mother.
Bridging the divide between such opposing worldviews is nearly impossible considering the context around the conversation. Abortion is not comparable to a fun political dinner table debate on tax or education policy. For most, especially those who have been pregnant or might one day be, the conversation is rather draining. To argue the most basic or obvious ideas with one who opposes them can be an agree-to-disagree conversation at best or borderline traumatizing at worst. Rarely does one arrive at the opposite conclusion they started with when entering this policy arena.
For example, one who believes life begins at conception may find few reasons to discourse with someone who, in their view, is absolutely fine with the mass murder that takes place everyday. While on the other hand, one who believes the woman’s right to choose will always outweigh the hypothetical rights of a fetus using her bodily resources often finds little reason to discourse with someone who’s adamant on taking that right away.
As such, the moral philosophical arguments for either side is convoluted with dense academic research: secular, theological, and otherwise. Debates on the matter bring the best minds from either side, locked and loaded with analogies, talking points, and anecdotes. There seems to be no bipartisan escape for lawmakers facing abortion policy. And on a larger scale, this is exactly what the American political arena is becoming with every issue. The ideological split is growing over the decades with no reconciliation in sight. Moderates seeking political shelter in the middle will find difficulty as Democrats grow more liberal and Republicans grow more conservative.
Therefore, it’s easy to understand why these groups decline to partake in respectful conversations with those across the isle. If the long-term cost of diplomacy is greater than that of the expected return, economists would say such a venture is worth dropping. As a result, while the ideological warfare between the loyal pro-choicers and pro-lifers continue, it’s vastly important for both groups to mobilize those in the middle to get to the polls and vote in their favor. Essentially, both parties have no choice but to internalize the saying, “It’s my way or the highway.”
So how do these mobilization efforts manifest in recent years?
Gallup poll data from 2018–2021 shows Americans are overall marginally still in favor of abortion rights. Trends demonstrate younger demographics as well as individuals with more education tend to increasingly self identify as pro-choice. However, the same data also demonstrates this marginal majority hangs in the balance. Over time, increases and decreases differ in annual data for both men and women’s response on how they self identify in regards to the abortion debate.
For example, out of those interviewed, more women identified as pro-life in 2019 than did men. In the same year’s data, men interviewed were more likely to self identify as pro-choice than women interviewed. But now, in 2021, the exact opposite is the case. Men interviewed are far more likely to be pro-life than women counterparts, who now have a much larger tendency to be pro-choice.
So while the times are changing, opinions are too — and inconsistently. Given no other sociological context, the changes between 2019 and 2021 seem to be unprecedented switches in worldview among gender demographics. Furthermore, just by observing the numbers, one will notice the majority is constantly hanging in the balance. The loyalties to either side remain rather close to 50–50 for both genders. With such ideological conversions occurring in such little time, the policies to follow will likely reflect the same trends.
All of this to say, the tension described between the dichotomy of pro-life and pro-choice (and as is depicted at the Women’s March 2021) is a demonstration of the condition of the nationwide conversation on abortion and contemporary American politics at large.
Middle ground is increasingly disappearing and arguably approaching extinction between Democrats and Republicans. Opinions on policy vary between marginal-majority extremes from year to year. Mobilization efforts to transform relatively neutral parties into partisan devotees are the only effective, rational option remaining for loyalists. Without a significant change in political culture, it appears as though interparty deliberation might soon be null.
That being said, these observations beg the question: Is division inherently negative? I’ll leave that conversation for another day.
