If a woman finds herself pregnant, discusses her options with her physician or counselor, and decides to have an abortion, should the state over-ride her decision and prevent her from having an abortion? The first decision is a personal one, between the woman, her physician and/or counselor. The second decision has been answered by the U.S. Supreme Court: she has the right to obtain an abortion. It is in this second area where there is a great deal of political activity, at least in the U.S.
In the United States, women choose to end about 25% of their pregnancies through abortion. This number has been gradually declining since 1979. This is similar to the Canadian figure of 21%, 2 but is much lower than that of the former Soviet Union (60%) and Romania (78%) where contraceptives are in short supply.
A social consensus exists among pro-lifers and pro-choicers that when human personhood starts, the person must be protected. Many religions, organizations and individuals have passionately held but conflicting beliefs about when this happens. This naturally leads to opposing policies on whether a woman should have access to abortion. .
In spite of what the media might say, this struggle cannot be reduced to a simple pro-choice vs. pro-life conflict. There are people within each "side" who take many slightly different positions. .
To most pro-lifers, human person hood begins at the instant of conception. Thus, they see an abortion clinic as the ethical equivalent of a Nazi death camp. All or almost all abortions should be prohibited.
To pro-choicers, human personhood begins later in gestation or at birth. They view abortion as a civil rights matter -- a decision that should be left up to an informed woman and her physician.
The objectives of both groups are the same: to reduce the number of abortions, and to make any needed abortions safe. However, they have very different methods of achieving their goals, and they have divergent beliefs about which abortions are justifiable.