Pro-choice supporters argue for a woman’s right to make her own choices, but are willing at times to consider some restrictions if the abortion comes very late in the term of pregnancy. The right to terminate a pregnancy is thought by them to be a choice that a woman makes to be in charge of her own body. Therefore, it is almost held as a sacred obligation that society does not interfere with that choice. In cases of late-term abortions, they are sometimes willing to balance the life of the child. Pro-life advocates want to strip that right. For them, the life of the child is held as sacred, and it must be balanced against the choice of the mother. Even they are generally willing, however, to make exceptions in the case of danger to the mother’s life or pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Such balancing is often done with heavy hearts on both sides of the issue. To complicate matters even further, some hold extreme positions that do not allow for any compromises at all. Some advocate for choice and some for life, with no exceptions. This is why abortion has remained, on both sides over the years, a hotly-debated and controversial issue. This paper will summarize the arguments that have been involved in this debate.
One of the main problems with abortion’s legality in the view of those who argue for a pro-choice position is the procedure’s terrible history. In the past, women had to go to doctors or unlicensed individuals (e.g., midwives or, worse, shady “chemists”) for illegal abortions. These procedures were often performed in secret, unclean surroundings. Most of the operators who performed abortions when they were illegal were poorly qualified (or, as stated, unlicensed), and the care delivered was unsanctioned, unregulated, and dangerous. It sometimes resulted in infertility. Some women met with tragic circumstances, including death by infection and bleeding that could have been prevented if abortions had been done