Why pro-choice matters to me

The simple answer to this is because I was raised that way. That simple thing probably informs most people's base view on the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum, but doesn't show the whole of it. Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade, which means whole generations have grown up in the post-Roe world. Some of us who were born shortly after Roe have children of choice ourselves. If those children were had early enough, those same children of choice are hitting puberty themselves and the debate now becomes personal for them.

Pro-choice is more than just pro-abortion. Pro-choice means being in favor of having control over reproduction, and abortion is just one more tool. Because the biology of reproduction costs women far more than men, having children is a far bigger event in the lives of women than it is for men. Having choice about reproduction means greatly enhanced life options.

Pro-choice is about being able to chose when to start a family, and even having the option of not starting one at all. Abortion provides the 'last resort' to ensure this choice. Some argue at length that adoption is a much better alternative, but pregnancy itself imposes a major burden on a woman. Adoption is just another tool in the pro-choice toolbox, it isn't a replacement for abortion.

English Law clearly establishes that maternal liability for harm caused in utero does not exist. Some US states are based on Common Law so may also have this protection. The US Federal Law is not based on common law, so instead we have to rely on laws and judicial rulings to define whether or not a mother can be held liable for harm caused in utero. Science is getting better and better at figuring out what actions a mother can take to cause harm, or reduce harm, to a fetus. The US system of law allows a mother to be held liable for harm incurred in utero, as happened to a Wisconsin woman in 1995 who was confined to a hospital by the state in order to prevent her from using illegal drugs and harming her fetus (Angela M. W. v. Kruzicki).

Therefore, if a mother is forced to carry an unwanted child to term and give them up for adoption, rather than abort, it can open her up to liability. Thus, a mother carrying to term HAS to 'do it right', even if she doesn't want the child. This presents a significant burden to the mother. In the US, this means that the unwanted child has to receive adequate pre-natal care which is a health-care expense. Therefore, adoption is a viable alternative to abortion only if the mother is willing to endure the expense of adequate pre-natal care.

I consider reproductive choice a fairness issue. This is one area where nature clearly dictates distinct differences between the sexes, which is why I believe that modern technology can be correctly used to equalize this. Until science can perfect a uterine replicator, and therefore free women from the duty of bearing the children of choice, there will always be a disparity; but at least it can be a disparity of choice. We are tool users by nature, so this seems quite fair to me.

Women deserve as much of a chance to live their lives as they see fit as men do. Reproductive choice is a major part of that goal. This is why pro-choice matters to me.