The Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision to overturn Roe V Wade, reversing its own 1973 ruling that established abortion rights by constitution, will not end but rather intensify the perennially fractious pro- or anti-abortion debate.

Not unexpectedly, the June 25, 2022 SCOTUS decision has set off the familiar verbal pitched battles in the streets of the US over whether a woman should have the right to decide to abort or keep a foetus deemed to be unwanted.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has placed the decision about the right to abortion back into the hands of the individual states, which has already seen politically conservative states passing legislation banning abortions, while liberal ones will uphold those rights.

“The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court’s nine judges — six conservatives and three liberals.

We have said in this space before that we do not see any end to the divisiveness over the issue of abortions, especially because it has become a religious flashpoint for some who believe that it is all about the sacredness of life.

The pros and cons are compelling on both sides, making it difficult to assume absolute positions. What seems to be largely missing from the debate, however, is an extension of the right to life beyond the foetus stage to equal concern about the quality of life after birth. It is too easy to kill a black person or ignore their social conditions in the US.

Those who argue for the foetus to be allowed to come to term, no matter what the consequences, would strengthen their case immensely if they throw similar effort behind the establishment of agencies to adopt unwanted children and ensure they grow up under healthy conditions. Of course, that is easier said than done.

Yet even at that, it is an impossible proposition to exclude the most important people — the potential parents — from a decision whether to have an abortion or not.

In the final analysis, it comes down to the woman who has conceived to make that decision, especially if the man who impregnated her has disappeared from her life.

We cannot imagine that it is easy to get rid of a foetus, and certainly not one that is not severely compromised health wise. Moreover, such a decision must often be traumatic, and so we don’t expect women to take it lightly.

We believe that since it is the woman who will have the burden of bringing up the child in the way it should grow, there can be no more powerful argument than that they should have rights over their unborn foetuses.

In the meantime, we hope that this political and social earthquake that Americans have alternately celebrated and mourned will not bring the country to its knees as public demonstrations grow.

These protests are likely to increase as the November midterm elections draw closer, because both sides see the Supreme Court’s decision as fodder for their political campaigns. Dare we hope that good sense will prevail?