ABORTION

This study examined the societal implications of the criminalisation of abortion in Ugbowo Community, Benin Metropolis and also weighed the responses of the people on this legal standpoint, relying on the sociological jurisprudential theory of Law and the person-centred theory in Medicine. Using a mixed sampling technique and a descriptive cross-sectional research design, data were obtained from 221 community residents and workers, which include youths (students and non-students), medical practitioners, medical students, legal practitioners, traders and others all within the area of study. Descriptive findings showed high level of legal of awareness about the criminalisation of abortion in the community, with 87.3% correctly identifying abortion as criminalised in Nigeria. Despite this high awareness, most respondents argued that the current Laws are inadequate and ambiguous, therefore calling for liberalization. Respondents further recognized strong sociocultural influences, with 90.5% agreeing that cultural and religious factors shape community attitudes towards abortion practices. Therefore, even though many condemn it publicly, they procure it behind the scene and obviously, in the unsafe manner. Findings also revealed that criminalisation has significant societal and health implications. A combined 84.6% believed that restrictive Laws push women toward unsafe practices, while 80.2% associated criminalisation with broader social challenges such as single parenting, out-of-school children and socio-economic problems. Access to safe abortion and reproductive healthcare was perceived as substantially constrained by the abortion restrictive provisions, with 74.7% affirming that the Law prevents medical personnel from offering safe abortion which have been medically proven to be of little to no risk. Inferential statistics confirmed that legal awareness significantly influence societal responses about abortion discourse. It also confirmed that criminalisation significantly contributes to unsafe abortion practices and negative outcomes in the community, therefore access to safe abortion will significantly increase better health and well-being outcomes of women who procure abortion, and to achieve this, the Law needs to be liberalized. Medically-related findings were equally compelling. An overwhelming majority (91%) agreed that unsafe abortion contributes to maternal mortality and 94.6% affirmed that the health consequences of unsafe abortion are severe and long-lasting. Stakeholders’ perspectives analysis revealed significant gender differences in perspectives, meaning that men and women do not support abortion liberalization at the same rate while medical and legal practitioners showed no statistically significant differences in their views, meaning both groups broadly supported abortion liberalization. Overall, the findings demonstrated that criminalisation neither reduces abortion incidence nor protects women’s health, but instead increases underground procurement, unsafe practices and harmful social outcomes. The study recommends legal clarification especially for medical practitioners who are still uncertain about the extent of the Law, hence scared of legal repercussions, broadened indications for safe abortion beyond the exception of ‘to preserve the mother’s life’, strengthened reproductive health services, and evidence-based Law reform channeled towards the reality of the people.

Abortion represents more than a medical or moral decision; it is an existential dilemma that touches the deepest aspects of personal autonomy, dignity, and social belonging. Women who undergo abortion often confront not only the physical and emotional dimensions of the act but also the heavy weight of social and relIgious stigmatization. Such stigmatization creates an atmosphere of judgment and exclusion, reducing a profoundly personal experience to a source of shame. Abortion challenges cultural expectations that define womanhood in terms of motherhood and reproductive roles. When a woman chooses abortion, she is often perceived as defying communal values, leading to isolation, secrecy, and in many cases, long-term psychological trauma. The human cost of such stigmatization is often overlooked in public discourse, as attention is placed more on moral condemnation than on compassion and understanding. Abortion is frequently cast as a violation of divine order and the sanctity of life. This view, while deeply rooted in sacred traditions, often disregards the real human struggles. poverty, abuse, health risks, or personal circumstances that shape such choices. Yet within these same traditions exist currents of mercy, compassion, and contextual reasoning that recognize human frailty and moral complexity. This project argues that approaching abortion from a human perspective demands moving beyond rigid stigmatization toward empathy and dialogue. By affirming women as moral agents capable of difficult decisions, society and religion can create spaces for healing rather than condemnation. The problem of stigmatization reveals not only the tension between
life and choice but also the urgent need for a more humane ethic, one that values dignity, justice, and compassion in addressing the realities of abortion.