Maritza Ramirez Parra
Professor Ramos
English 1B
April 8, 2019
A Letter to Pro- Life

In an increasingly dynamic environment such as that of the United States, radical issues have been normalized. Among these perspectives, the practice of abortion has made it’s way into the minds of opinionated Americans and has resulted in an increase of passive dispute. Pro-choice and Pro-Life campaigns have focused heavily on the morality of abortion and have come to rationalize extremist practices and political opinion. However, the issue at hand is not abortion or a woman’s right to choose, but that society has not created an environment where abortion is not a plausible choice.

Aside from the political stigma that the concept of abortion raises, the issue at hand exposes flaws in the role of society on the individual. America carried itself with a strong sense of patriotism and focus on family structure in the early to mid 1900s. As progressive movements, such as the second wave of feminism, became prominent in later decades, the paradigm of family began to rapidly shift. The conservative mindset did not adjust practically to the changes in daily life as more mothers became single and the issues of finance and familial support came to be. As a result, abortion became a viable choice in an environment such as this.
In a liberal environment, a more linguistic and scientific approach was developed to address an unborn child as a fetus or an embryo. Many pro-choice advocates argue that because it is merely a biological specimen without human capabilities, there is a lack of empathy for a being that does not constitute as a “person”. Dr. Kristen Luker, however, explains that personhood “connotes certain properties that not all members of the human species of the human species posses” (Luker pg. 254). She goes on to say that “there can be no reason that the human fetus does not yet possess [these properties].” Luker is noting that personhood is not based on ability and that a fetus has the capacity to develop these abilities. However, the issue is not whether a fetus is a person, but that the interchangeability of these terms has allowed for society to desensitize itself and rationalize the practice of abortion. Both ends of the spectrum agree that abortion is an uncomfortable topic and a much more difficult decision to partake in so the need for it to be an option had to be molded into an acceptable concept.
Beyond the anthropological take on how we view babies before birth, the real issue is not necessarily abortion. Canadian Pro-Life activist, Stephanie Grey, uses a socratic-like method on this topic to arouse a more civilized discussion. In her seminar for Google Talks, she makes it a crucial point that society has a duty to prioritize the weak. The individual is influenced heavily by society, thus, society needs to encourage the individual. The real issue is that women have a right to choose, but they are forced to choose between themselves and an unborn being. In an idealistic community, the stronger inevitably care for the weak, but pregnant women are struck with unforeseen circumstances that does not allow for this to be a parallel in the scenario. Women can struggle in this decision because of the absence of the father, little to no familial support, financial need, or even the result of sexual assault. These are all valid obstacles between the woman and the child in her womb. Using Grey’s assessment of society, those who preach against abortion should be the ones creating an environment in where abortion should not even be a plausible resort.
It is clear that abortion is really at the hands of society, but who exactly in society is responsible for curating a system in which abortion becomes eradicated systematically? Religious communities have already ventured into creating crisis pregnancy centers for women, but the lack of science among these does not propose credibility to the cause. Dr. Tsevat and Dr. Gallo evaluated the services at Ohio pregnancy centers and said that “although only one CPC provided direct medical care, 60% failed to specify during the call that they were not a medical facility.” In a study examining the relationship between evangelical Christian denominations and crisis pregnancy centers, it is shown that “group size can affirm convictions… but can also reduce the motivation to act when the size of the group surpasses majority status” (McVeigh, Crubaugh, Estep). These approaches to abortion needs to be strengthened by the humanitarian efforts that these organizations stand on morally. This can be done through an outreach to government and a focus on a cooperation with allocation of funds and proposal of bills focusing on pregnancy centers.
The answer is not as simple as removing funds from an organization such as Planned Parenthood and easily giving them to a CPC. Government needs to place a larger focus on encouraging careers such as OB/GYN, which are in increasing demand. Counseling right now is readily available to the pregnant woman, but little is offered to her when she becomes a mother while analyzing what women really seek from a pregnancy resource center, Katrina Kimport found that “[women] most frequently discussed parenting resources/referrals in peer counseling (55%). Only 6% of clients discussed pregnancy options and only 2% discussed abortion during peer counseling.” This demonstrates that a pregnant woman’s instinct when facing difficulty is not extreme but rather seeks to find solutions to be able to nurture the child. They are really looking for support on parenting in a long- term perspective, not just getting through the pregnancy. Support needs to transcend through the entirety of fetal development, even after birth; the goal isn’t to prevent abortion but to provide opportunity for mothers to be mentally and financially stable enough to care for the child. As for other options, government action should be long term and should also work on the adoption/ foster care system that is currently struggling. If the ethics and accessibility of this system were corrected, pregnant women would feel secure in leaning towards that direction.
Pro-Life has been a cause corroded by extremist, conservative ideology. But life, in practicality, begins after birth and society’s reaction to abortion should acquire a perspective of responsibility to influence the individual and their posterity. By providing more options and well-intended support to women faced with a choice, the decision becomes easier and that decision is life.

Aside from the political stigma that the concept of abortion raises, the issue at hand exposes flaws in the role of society on the individual. America carried itself with a strong sense of patriotism and focus on family structure in the early to mid 1900s. As progressive movements, such as the second wave of feminism, became prominent in later decades, the paradigm of family began to rapidly shift. The conservative mindset did not adjust practically to the changes in daily life as more mothers became single and the issues of finance and familial support came to be. As a result, abortion became a viable choice in an environment such as this.
In a liberal environment, a more linguistic and scientific approach was developed to address an unborn child as a fetus or an embryo. Many pro-choice advocates argue that because it is merely a biological specimen without human capabilities, there is a lack of empathy for a being that does not constitute as a “person”. Dr. Kristen Luker, however, explains that personhood “connotes certain properties that not all members of the human species of the human species posses” (Luker pg. 254). She goes on to say that “there can be no reason that the human fetus does not yet possess [these properties].” Luker is noting that personhood is not based on ability and that a fetus has the capacity to develop these abilities. However, the issue is not whether a fetus is a person, but that the interchangeability of these terms has allowed for society to desensitize itself and rationalize the practice of abortion. Both ends of the spectrum agree that abortion is an uncomfortable topic and a much more difficult decision to partake in so the need for it to be an option had to be molded into an acceptable concept.
Beyond the anthropological take on how we view babies before birth, the real issue is not necessarily abortion. Canadian Pro-Life activist, Stephanie Grey, uses a socratic-like method on this topic to arouse a more civilized discussion. In her seminar for Google Talks, she makes it a crucial point that society has a duty to prioritize the weak. The individual is influenced heavily by society, thus, society needs to encourage the individual. The real issue is that women have a right to choose, but they are forced to choose between themselves and an unborn being. In an idealistic community, the stronger inevitably care for the weak, but pregnant women are struck with unforeseen circumstances that does not allow for this to be a parallel in the scenario. Women can struggle in this decision because of the absence of the father, little to no familial support, financial need, or even the result of sexual assault. These are all valid obstacles between the woman and the child in her womb. Using Grey’s assessment of society, those who preach against abortion should be the ones creating an environment in where abortion should not even be a plausible resort.
It is clear that abortion is really at the hands of society, but who exactly in society is responsible for curating a system in which abortion becomes eradicated systematically? Religious communities have already ventured into creating crisis pregnancy centers for women, but the lack of science among these does not propose credibility to the cause. Dr. Tsevat and Dr. Gallo evaluated the services at Ohio pregnancy centers and said that “although only one CPC provided direct medical care, 60% failed to specify during the call that they were not a medical facility.” In a study examining the relationship between evangelical Christian denominations and crisis pregnancy centers, it is shown that “group size can affirm convictions… but can also reduce the motivation to act when the size of the group surpasses majority status” (McVeigh, Crubaugh, Estep). These approaches to abortion needs to be strengthened by the humanitarian efforts that these organizations stand on morally. This can be done through an outreach to government and a focus on a cooperation with allocation of funds and proposal of bills focusing on pregnancy centers.
The answer is not as simple as removing funds from an organization such as Planned Parenthood and easily giving them to a CPC. Government needs to place a larger focus on encouraging careers such as OB/GYN, which are in increasing demand. Counseling right now is readily available to the pregnant woman, but little is offered to her when she becomes a mother while analyzing what women really seek from a pregnancy resource center, Katrina Kimport found that “[women] most frequently discussed parenting resources/referrals in peer counseling (55%). Only 6% of clients discussed pregnancy options and only 2% discussed abortion during peer counseling.” This demonstrates that a pregnant woman’s instinct when facing difficulty is not extreme but rather seeks to find solutions to be able to nurture the child. They are really looking for support on parenting in a long- term perspective, not just getting through the pregnancy. Support needs to transcend through the entirety of fetal development, even after birth; the goal isn’t to prevent abortion but to provide opportunity for mothers to be mentally and financially stable enough to care for the child. As for other options, government action should be long term and should also work on the adoption/ foster care system that is currently struggling. If the ethics and accessibility of this system were corrected, pregnant women would feel secure in leaning towards that direction.
Pro-Life has been a cause corroded by extremist, conservative ideology. But life, in practicality, begins after birth and society’s reaction to abortion should acquire a perspective of responsibility to influence the individual and their posterity. By providing more options and well-intended support to women faced with a choice, the decision becomes easier and that decision is life.