Verified by 
In China women are permitted to have one child and are forced by the government to abort further children. The rationale is that unless the population is controlled, it will outstrip available resources and all will suffer. In the United States, women are free to have as many children as they want and as a result many women who can’t afford to feed, clothe, and adequately care for them still have children. What if the government in the United States forced these women to abort? Like the Chinese, surely the U.S. government could come up with a rationale for such a policy based on population control or the quality of life.
Anti-abortion proponents would scoff at even the suggestion, and so would all or most advocates of a woman’s right to choose. Yet, many who oppose abortion advocate forcing pro choice proponents to carry to term.
Forcing women to carry to term, no less than forcing them to abort, is a form of extremism. Proponents on either side of the abortion controversy should not be permitted to use legal means to force their will on those who do not take their same position. Anti-abortion proponents typically argue that “life” (meaning “personhood”) begins at conception because the genetic code has then been set. Pro-choice proponents counter-argue that this only makes the conceptus a potential person with potential rights, not an actual person with actual rights; and that, at this early stage, the qualities that make it a person are not yet formed—such as self-awareness. Both sides appear to have rational arguments, and neither is likely to yield to the other. In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research poll, Americans are evenly divided on the question of legal abortion, and many proponents on either side are polarized, believing that the views of those on the opposing side are not respectable.
In the case of a heated moral controversy such as the abortion issue, which is not likely to be solved by rational argument alone, it is unjust for one side of the debate to use the law to force the other to live under constraint of its personal values. This is all the more unacceptable in a multicultural, pluralistic nation presumed to be democratic.
While there does appear to be greater consensus among the general population on third trimester abortions, there is no such consensus regarding first and second trimester abortions. Accordingly, decisions as to whether to abort in the first or second trimester should be left to the discretion of pregnant women and their significant others, and should not, therefore, be forced by government to carry to term. Anti-abortion proponents would not want to be forced by government to have an abortion; so this group should not similarly force pro-choice proponents to carry to term.
The refusal to permit federal funding of abortion in the first or second trimester can be a form of coercion for women who cannot privately afford abortions. It can be tantamount to forcing a woman to carry to term. But, as stated, this is unjust where there is rational disagreement and no census on the moral issue. It is a case of one group using its political power to force its moral view on those who do not share the same view. In a democratic nation, which respects First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression, this is undemocratic, and probably unconstitutional. The rational thing to do amid the inherent controversy is to agree to disagree, and to permit others to live according to their moral lights as you would live according to yours.
