There is a subject that holds the attention of our political divide where politicians swivel around its substantive reality: the Right to Choose versus Pro-Life.
I will begin by being clear: No “Right to Choose” advocate is saying that continuiing an unplanned pregnancy should never be an option. My personal opinion is that the continuation of, or to discontinue, an unwanted pregnancy must be the choice of the woman with her personal counsel in the early term. To say otherwise is to say that the equality and freedom of a woman is suspended when she unwantedly becomes pregnant, and that is not justifiable.
A government demand that a woman continues a pregnancy she did not want, denies her freedom to pursue the life she intended. In contrast to a man who does not bear the consequence within the reality of pregnancy.
Are a woman’s rights lessened from her birth due to the fact that she can one day be impregnated? It is ethically wrong for government to determine the outcome from the act of intercourse due to her physiology; there could be no more extreme invasion of rights and privacy.
I’ve heard it said many times: “If men got pregnant, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.” While that may be repeated so often that it has become cliché, it is likely true. This issue is about the full realization of a woman’s right to determine her future and have dominion over her own body.
Yet, I must repeat: Abortion is horrible. There is nothing pleasant or uncomplicated about it and I understand the Pro-Life movement. But their argument centers around birth and not life. It is, in reality, a “Pro-Birth” movement and there is a profound contradiction behind wanting a child to be born, but then to fight, or downright deny, tax dollars that feed, house or educate every child.
We must weigh reality with rights and we cannot allow government to extend to limiting personal freedom simply because of the physiological nature of gender.
This is a delicate, personal, and emotional issue. A pregnancy centers on rights and the parameters of government intervention as well as the sanctity of life. There is no position from either side that will necessarily change, or even satisfy, the opposing argument, but, what can happen is an understanding of purpose, and we can curtail some of the angry rhetoric.
An advocate for a woman’s right to choose is not a baby killer. That too often used phrase only harms the cause of protecting life and upholding equal rights. We don’t have to fan hyperbole to the point where it is political suicide to even talk about it.
Recommended reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html