Abortion and Motherhood

Last year, on my way home from school, I drove past a billboard that said:
Pro-life n. The radical idea that babies are people.

I just found that they also sell t-shirt: http://www.zazzle.com/pro_life_n_the_radical_idea_that_babies_are_pe_tshirt-235026368679731819

Eleanor Cooney's piece was very disturbing (particularly the picture) and taught me about the methods of second and third term abortions, about which I did not know the details. Pieces like hers are so vital to raising awareness about the torture women must go through when they do not have the economic, familial, emotional support necessary to be able to make safe decisions. The need to abort an unwanted pregnancy can drive a woman to seek a solution no matter how unhealthy the conditions.  It was Arcana's piece that got me really thinking about the nuances of abortion discussions that have made it such a divided and forceful political debate. The billboard and t-shirts referenced above attempt to simplify the issue by claiming that the argument is about whether or not babies should be classified as people. This is a very useful political tactic, because it will most likely inspire the patriarchal need to protect the weak and the parental need to protect the young and vulnerable in the american public.  Opponents of this stance would claim that the issue is not surrounding babies and their status but around a fetus' status as a a baby. I do not know if Arcana's statement, "but we never didn't know that being pregnant meant having a baby growing inside of our bodies," is as undebatable as she makes it seem. I found myself taken aback by her statement, given that I assumed she would be writing about the positives of abortion access.  The unfortunate facts of the matter are that I am uncomfortable with this statement because I know that politically, this could never be taken as semantically true if pro-choice advocates are going to have any change of succeeding in securing Roe v. Wade legislation. Comparing the decision of aborting a fetus or baby (which word do we use?) to giving a child up for adoption do seem to hold similar weight and are both justified decisions based on the "conditions surrounding the mother and the probability her child's life will be a strong one." Abortion, proclaims Arcana, is "a matter of life and death, we all knew that." While fundamentally I may believe, I am extremely reluctant to acknowledge it because of the political implications it will hold. It seems that in order to provide a successful argument, pro-choice proponents need to intentionally leave out the concept of motherhood, because opponents will not believe a life-ending choice is justifies, no matter the circumstances, if the word "life" is involved. They do not have Arcana's experience to be able to believe some of the pro-life descriptions with a pro-choice stance. They believe that the responsibility of such a weighty decision should not be left to the mother's discretion, although similar decisions are permissible post-birth. They ignore the potential of the child's life, which may have a very low or no probability of a strong life, just as they ignore the potentially permanently harming births for mothers. These aspects cannot be ignored and must be factored in to the analysis surrounding this issue.