To live or let live?

Recently a pretty significant uproar was created over yet another development in the United States and at this point I think most people wouldn't bat an eyelash if the US were to fly off into space one day. 

Back to the issue at hand, one of America's landmark rulings, that of Roe v Wade has been overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States(which I'll refer to using SCOTUS, going forward). It has created much dissent and discussion alike regarding where things are headed for the US and its citizens and to some extent I feel has some importance to the rest of the world as well.

To understand why exactly the overturning of Roe V Wade caused such an intense response we have to understand what it is and exactly what it protects(or well used to protect I suppose).

Jane Roe 

To begin with, Roe v Wade is a pivotal legal case in US history regarding the legality of abortions.

It was brought by Norma McCorvey who used Jane Roe(a variation of Jane Doe) as a pseudonym to argue for the right to abort her third child. McCorvey was a native of Texas, a state in the south of the US known for being particularly conservative and religious. At the time of the case i.e 1973 abortion laws were extremely tight in Texas owing to the aforementioned prevailing ideologies. 

McCorvey felt that she wouldn't be able to give a proper home to a third child as she was without an occupation and was severely depressed, she felt that abortion was a tough but right call for her particular situation. 

Of course due to restrictive laws regarding abortions in Texas she didn't have much of an option. Her friends tried to convince her to claim that the pregnancy was the result of a gangrape by a group of black men(this was still the late sixties in the US, black people were an easy scapegoat to blame most misfortunes for). Fortunately McCorvey decided to not go forward with that route and instead decide to seek out an illegal abortion clinic, as luck would have it however, the one that she was recommended had recently been shut down by the authorities.

Her doctor suggested consulting with an adoption lawyer as an option. McCorvey wasn't planning on trying for adoption but eventually met the attorney after she delivered her third child.

This meeting eventually led to McCorvey meeting two attorneys who would completely change her life and that of many others: Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.  

Coffee and Weddington were two recently graduated lawyers who were part of a group of graduate students who sought to bring about greater freedom with regards to rights for abortion. They were searching for such pregnant women looking for abortions and McCorvey had almost serendipitously appeared before them.

They convinced McCorvey to pursue this legally by suing Henry Wade the district attorney for Dallas at the time who was responsible for upholding the statutes regarding abortion. McCorvey was given a pseudonym(Jane Roe) to protect her identity.

It must be noted that McCorvey had a considerably turbulent life. Her parents had divorced soon after she turned thirteen and she along with her brother was raised by her mother who was an alcoholic with violent tendencies. She allegedly suffered sexual assault each night from her mother's cousin over the span of three weeks when she was sent to live with him. After meeting Elwood McCorvey, she married him at the age of 16 only to face domestic violence and left him soon after.

It was at this juncture that she had her first child. Perhaps owing to her circumstances McCorvey developed a serious drinking and drug problem, she also identified her sexuality as a lesbian. Her first daughter was taken from her by her mother according to her by making her sign the adoption papers under the pretense that they were some documents in regards to their insurance. She eventually had a second child, who she gave away for adoption. So at the time of this case McCorvey had already led a troubled life to say the least.

A surprising turn of events after the court case was that, McCorvey did a complete 180 on her stance regarding abortion. She publicly made statements condemning abortion, and on numerous occasions expressed regret at having been part of the case. She joined the Catholic Church and announced that she was not lesbian anymore. Yet on her deathbed she made a confession that she was in fact paid to take the anti-abortion stance and for her religious conversion.

 An uncertain life to say the least, and yet one that brought a lot more certainty into the lives of many young women.

And the verdict is...

The case was brought up all the way to the top, to the purview of the SCOTUS which after much deliberation came to the verdict that women had the right to choose abortion without excessive governmental pressure or restriction and struck down the Texas abortion ban.

This was seen as a landmark judgement for women because it gave women the choice rather than make it a question of morality or ethics of a society or ideology and was seen as another step in returning control of women's bodies to themselves. 

It led to other cases such as Doe v Bolton and Planned Parenthood v Casey which all brought greater freedom as far as abortion rights are concerned.

What's the problem now?

Unfortunately, Roe v Wade's landmark decision was overruled by SCOTUS in the verdict for Dobbs v Jackson Medical Health Organisation which came as a shocking setback to women's rights in the country according to popular opinion. 

According to SCOTUS, a framework nor place for abortion law is granted in the deep history or tradition of the nation and therefore the presence of such laws is not justified.

But who's right?

To understand why this whole issue is a topic of contention at all we must understand the perspectives of both sides of the argument, they are popularly known as pro-choice and pro-life for pro-abortion and anti-abortion respectively.

Pro-Choice supporters are found to have a higher concentration among younger demographics with educated professionals featuring high on the list. Their political leaning is generally more liberal. The perspective with which they look at the issue of abortion is that the preservation of self is of paramount importance. Only a woman has autonomy over her body according to them and it is her decision on what to do with it. Not the responsibility of society, nor church nor government, her decision.

Pro-Life supporters are found to have a higher concentration among older demographics. Education is still present but generally to a lesser extent(largely owing to much less educational infrastructure in the past). They are usually leaning towards the conservative right with a strong emphasis on religion. In fact for a large proportion of pro-choice members their religion is the foundation of their stance against abortion- to be specific Christianity.  Contrary to the belief of feminists of-my body my rights, the Christian conservatives believe that it isn't our body nor world to begin with, it belongs to God and to abort a child regardless of the condition of the parents is denying the gift of life that God has given them.

Additionally, another large section of pro-choice supporters are of this stance because of the sanctity of life. In their view,  abortion is nothing more than the murder of a child regardless of whether it is born yet or a fetus or not. One may counter that they don't have any business interfering in the business of others but to them, ,it's like stopping a terrorist from killing people. They feel the need to take action because otherwise they feel that by remaining silent they themselves are complicit in the action.

Bear in mind there are several people who aren't several people aren't able to commit to either side completely. And it is my understanding that both sides are against abortion in the sense that no one considers it a pleasant experience- it is an unfortunate event and those who take abortions are not jumping with joy at losing a child either regardless of whether the child was wanted or unwanted, the pregnancy takes a physical, mental and emotional toll. 

So what IS the right answer? And what now?

As usual, I cannot tell you what to believe nor can I tell you what not to believe. I can only present you with the facts and my opinion, It is up to you to shape your own opinion.

And my opinion is that of pro-choice. The autonomy of a woman is inviolable and it is not the business of religion or society to choose what's best for them. You never know what a person is undergoing unless you are in their shoes and I think giving birth and committing to raising another Human Being is a scary enough commitment when you're prepared(relatively) and financially ready for it. Trying to fight against the odds of poverty and increasing prices is hard enough for a single person in our day and age and that is visible in the steadily decreasing rates of reproduction. Forcing people to keep unwanted children won't be doing any favours to the parent or child.

A child deserves a loving father and mother and a loving environment, he/she shouldn't be thrust upon the world as a burden. If a woman wants to raise a child that's good for her! But a woman who wants to spare a child from an unloved childhood is just as strong as one that decides to raise a child because it takes great courage to do both. 

SCOTUS's verdict makes no sense to me in the least. History and Tradition are just that HISTORY, no one's outlawing Assault Rifles and Missiles because they weren't present back in the 1800s. No one's outlawing contraceptives because they weren't present in the 1800s. It is such a flawed argument that makes one question how it ever was made by the top body of Judiciary in one of the world's biggest superpowers.

In the end, it all comes down to one thing in my opinion: the sanctity of life. In the hopes of preserving the life of the child, we must not forget the life of the mother or child or the other way around.