Induced abortion in the world: 3. In search of a minimum common ground

The rising worldwide trend toward legalization of termination of pregnancy has been accompanied by increased polarization around abortion. Two opposite broad coalitions emerged from this confrontation, generally known as the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movements. The basic issue for pro-life advocates is that the protection of "innocent, human life" is sacrosanct and must prevail over every other consideration. In contrast, the pro-choice stance has at its core the notions that a woman should be able to make decisions when it comes to her reproduction and that a woman should have full control over her own body and life. Within this debate, the medical profession moved from an anti-abortion stance at the beginning of the 20th Century to a stance often in favor of safe, legal pregnancy termination, motivated by a desire to reduce maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity by limiting unsafe illegal abortions performed by non-medically qualified practitioners. Given this reality, it might seem impossible to search for a minimum common ground. At the same time, efforts in this direction have been made for decades, and it is time to renew such attempts. We have identified a few areas where an open discussion can, and therefore should, be initiated, starting from the concept that interrupting a pregnancy entails the suppression of a potential human life and that, therefore, decreasing the reasons leading to it should be considered a common priority for all. This goal should be achieved through increased efforts aimed at decreasing the number of unwanted or untimed pregnancies. In turn, this means expanding efforts to make available throughout the world access to safe and acceptable contraception and family planning. Within this overall scenario, an agreement should be reached about the biological strong evidence pointing to the fact that "emergency contraception" does not cause an abortion.