Right off the bat, I’d like to apologize for the touchy title. I understand that many people choose to take this point of view, but after all, I am a writer, and I need a hook. Secondly, for the sake of being “politically correct”, I will use the term “Anti-choice” rather than pro-life. No one is anti-life. Lastly, I would like to somewhat retract my apology, because the title has a surprising amount of truth in it.
Unfortunately, In the US, many politicians choose to completely ignore the fact that our constitution demands the separation of church and state. Jimmy Carter was a hardcore proponent, and today we see the likes of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz preaching, if you will, to large crowds about why our next president should have a stern belief in god. For arguments sake, I would like the reader to hear me out as if we have a definite separation of church and state in this country. That being said, here is why the “anti-choice” movement is nonsensical.
First off, answer this question:
Are you a(n)
- Man, or B) Woman?
If you answered A, let me be the one to tell you that you are not allowed to tell a woman that being pro choice is wrong. When it comes to consent, the feeling has to be mutual, right? Well, luckily for women, a decision to have an abortion does not. Of course, before any procedures there must be discussion, but ultimately, the woman is the one who chooses what to do with her body.
Honestly, just writing the last sentence to that paragraph made me feel a little dumb. I shouldn’t have to be the one to say that.
So, since now hopefully it is understood that a man can’t make a decision for a woman (still feeling dumb), I will raise another simple multiple choice question.
Are you
- the government, or B) a woman?
If you answered A, well, I think you get the point. Or at least I hope so, because there are hundreds of politicians out there who still just can't quite grasp it.
Sure, anyone is allowed to make the personal decision to be against the concept of abortion. What is not allowed though, is “My religion/personal beliefs prevent me from being for legal abortions, so no one should have the means to get one.” Not to get too political, but it is usually Republicans who are the ones to say, “Well, religious freedom is written in our constitution, so since abortion is against mine, and many others' religious beliefs, no one should be allowed to obtain one.” This is extremely ironic considering religion is being used to suppress the rights of women, rather than give them freedom to make a decision.
Any reason that a women has for going through the procedure of an abortion doesn't matter. What matters is that in the near future, women need to be able to access the correct medical supplies and education so that this doesn't even have to be an argument, more or less a political debate anymore.
And for those who, after reading this, are still not convinced, the best way to show your anti-choice pride is to simply not get an abortion. Crazy concept, right?
It is very easy to see how ridiculous being anti-choice is. Even just saying “anti-choice” out loud seems weird, because it is very difficult to be against someone being able to make a choice. Factor in that a certain choice might improve a woman's life, or even save it, and it becomes clear that the pro-life movement was not founded on common sense, but rather on the premise of religious bigots who twist the first amendment and use it for political gain.
Disagree with me? Show me a reasonable argument that says otherwise. I’d love to hear it.
