A Matter of Choice

The right to abortion is currently one of the most internationally disputed topics, on social, political, and ethical levels. Conceptually, it has been so controversial because of varying understandings of what defines human life. These variations translate to three main different standpoints on this issue: pro-life, pro-choice, and an intermediate position that permits abortion in the cases of rape or a life-threatening pregnancy. But ethically, one must consider what exactly it means to prevent abortion in any situation, particularly its cultural and sexist ramifications. Abortion is a human right that is not just the extermination of a fertilized egg, it expands to the right of women to have authority over their own bodies and lives.

The labeling of “pro-life” is misleading in itself because its followers do not actually value all life. Its principles are obsessed with the protection of a molecule, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to threats to life outside of the womb. “Pro-life” should be a term that values all life and cannot be a label for those who believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth. One can’t be “pro-life” but be opposed to gun control that could prevent tens of thousands of deaths annually, many of which are children. One can’t be “pro-life” but not work towards environmental justice efforts and allow toxic waste, air, and water to poison entire communities. One can’t be “pro-life” but not support healthcare for all because, of course, people of a lesser socioeconomic status are less worthy of medical care and life. “Pro-life” should mean advocating for the rights and well-being of the poor, oppressed, sick, etc.. But being pro-life in the context of abortion has come to mean fighting to strip a woman of her reproductive rights until the birth of a baby, then proceeding to not care about the child’s future.

The self-proclaimed “moderate” position, while it is less restrictive than the polarizing pro-life perspective, still fails to grant women full autonomy and choice. It is essentially a less extremist version of the pro-life movement, but one cannot selectively choose when women should and shouldn’t have power over themselves. This movement permits abortion in the case of rape or incest, so what exactly does this mean ethically? It means that a woman has to be violated before she is granted rights to her own body. It means that a woman is only allowed to terminate her pregnancy if it had begun without her consent or in a tragically immoral situation.

Pro-life beliefs are often grounded in a sense of moral superiority backed by personal religious or philosophical beliefs. But the problem with this is the imposition of personal values. Why should a non-religious woman be forced to carry the child of her rapist because Christian beliefs demand that she do so? Why should religious values have any input in the rights of citizens in a country that celebrates freedom of religion and separation of Church and State? These same religious values are the same ones that are used to argue the criminalization of gay marriage, a mindset that dehumanizes homosexuals. So if the precious molecule were to be gay, would its life still be of value to the pro-life community? Religious sentiments, regardless of how important they are to an individual, have no place in political decisions that affect the citizen body.

Abortion is a major factor in modern feminism, as the attempt to control women’s reproductive freedom is in direct opposition with equalizing the genders. Thus, the issue of abortion has expanded and escalated into a question of whether the government will allow women to make their own decisions without the interference of an ultra-conservative right-wing pastor or an old white male politician (both of which may claim to be anti-abortion, though it can be agreed that they will never personally face such a situation). A woman is a woman and should be regarded as such, not as a container whose rights are speculated upon and withdrawn and awarded as though they are privileges. Limiting these rights (specifically reproductive rights because they are the ones that are exclusive to women) directly attempts to keep women in a position where they, including their natural reproductive functions, are under the control of men.

Pro-choice is the only approach to abortion that isn’t tainted by misogyny and a religious or moral superiority complex. Women should be allowed the dignity and right to make decisions about their own

bodies because it cannot be effectively argued that old male politicians are in a place to control and make oppressive laws about a woman’s uterus because of their own religiously-swayed, conservative beliefs.

This would directly challenge the progression of female rights.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings worthy of equal rights and capable of making their own decisions. As phrased by Frederica Mathewes-Green, “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.” Rather, abortion is a mentally and physically strenuous, often necessary last resort to maintain women’s abilities to save themselves from a male chauvinistic cycle of forced motherhood.

***