I have long been a supporter of reproductive rights. But other than voting for pro-choice candidates and donating to Planned Parenthood, I have felt that I did not have much of value to say that would meaningfully add to the conversation. But it seems important to speak publicly now, so here is my take.
Abortion as an act is morally neutral -- like having sex or getting married. I suppose it could potentially be wrong in some situations, but it can also be morally appropriate or even good in others. For some people, their faith dictates that abortion is always morally wrong. Thankfully, we live under a secular system of government, so religious prohibitions against abortion carry no weight for me, and should carry no weight in the discussion of what the law of the land should be. That places us in the realm of judging individual cases on their merits: in order to determine the morality of the act, one must be intimate with the context of the abortion and the persons involved in the decision.
Without context, neither the law nor the state has a place in the decision of whether a person should or should not have an abortion: it belongs to the woman considering an abortion, and rightly dwells between the woman and her health care provider. Perhaps the decision-maker can solicit measured input from her trusted support system: her partner, her friends, her family members, or even her faith leaders. But as with most morally-neutral decisions, the state does not have a place.
Abortion as a right is instrumental to equality under the law. A person whose bodily autonomy is substantially curtailed by the state does not possess equal rights in a meaningful way. There is no circuitous argument or word-parsing or that can erode this essential truth.
If the anti-abortion argument is that the state has an interest in "protecting the life of the 'unborn'," that does not move me. Even if I accepted the maximalist position that a fetus is a human being deserving of the same rights as a living, breathing person (which I do not), abortion should still be legal on the grounds that a woman should not be legally obligated to risk her health or her life to host that person for nine months. Her right to bodily autonomy -- her right to life -- outweighs the rights of her offspring.
Simply put, there are no circumstances in which a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
I am a father of three, and I am very lucky and grateful to be a dad. I love children. I love families. And there is no contradiction to also love bodily autonomy and human equality under the law.
I am pro-child, pro-family, and PRO-CHOICE.
