I am not pro-choice.
Here's the thing of it: Words are important. The words we use are very important. The anti-abortion activists have chosen "pro-life" as the name they call themselves. And the people who oppose them have chosen "pro-choice," and pretty much everyone knows what anyone is saying when they use those terms.
But by framing the argument in terms of "pro-choice," we've made a mistake. And granted those we oppose some power. "Choice" implies that there is a choice. That one could freely choose one or the other; have a baby or not. Each option more or less equal in value or moral weight. "I am pregnant and I choose to have the baby" or "I'm pregnant and I choose to abort it."
But there's the problem: It's not an easy choice. Sometimes it's no choice at all; in the most extreme cases, its "if I choose not to abort, I will die." This isn't the moral equivalent of choosing corned beef or pastrami. But by framing the debate in terms of "choice," we allow those who oppose us to attack our position in terms of "choice" as well. If they can prove that people often (or even sometimes) make poor choices, why then they have an advantage when the debate turns to whether people should be allowed to make that choice without the state to help make sure they make a good choice. Or whether the state should make the choice for good for everyone.
To deprive a woman of her right to control of her own body is to deprive her of our most precious possession: the right of self-determination. It isn't "choice" vs "life." It's self determination vs vassalage. Freedom vs tyranny.
I am pro-freedom.
---
This rant has been rolling around in the back of my head waiting to get out for many months. I'm not completely happy with the form its taken here; I think it needs some polish. I think it probably needs more words in the fourth paragraph (for one thing my sense of meter wants a third "this vs that" in there) and fewer words in the third. But now I have it out where I can look at it an pick at it.
Comments welcome.
But by framing the argument in terms of "pro-choice," we've made a mistake. And granted those we oppose some power. "Choice" implies that there is a choice. That one could freely choose one or the other; have a baby or not. Each option more or less equal in value or moral weight. "I am pregnant and I choose to have the baby" or "I'm pregnant and I choose to abort it."
But there's the problem: It's not an easy choice. Sometimes it's no choice at all; in the most extreme cases, its "if I choose not to abort, I will die." This isn't the moral equivalent of choosing corned beef or pastrami. But by framing the debate in terms of "choice," we allow those who oppose us to attack our position in terms of "choice" as well. If they can prove that people often (or even sometimes) make poor choices, why then they have an advantage when the debate turns to whether people should be allowed to make that choice without the state to help make sure they make a good choice. Or whether the state should make the choice for good for everyone.
To deprive a woman of her right to control of her own body is to deprive her of our most precious possession: the right of self-determination. It isn't "choice" vs "life." It's self determination vs vassalage. Freedom vs tyranny.
I am pro-freedom.
---
This rant has been rolling around in the back of my head waiting to get out for many months. I'm not completely happy with the form its taken here; I think it needs some polish. I think it probably needs more words in the fourth paragraph (for one thing my sense of meter wants a third "this vs that" in there) and fewer words in the third. But now I have it out where I can look at it an pick at it.
Comments welcome.