Preserving Freedom of Choice

I sometimes like to imagine what it would be like to live in a different time period. I always fantasized about the 1950s with its pretty dresses and glamorous movie stars like Audrey Hepburn. But the fantasy ends there because in reality, as an Asian-American woman, I wouldn’t be able to experience the freedoms I experience today. Our nation is now engaged in a great debate testing whether those freedoms can long endure. I am speaking, of course, of reproductive rights. I believe two things vehemently — that people with uteruses have a right to decide what to do with an unplanned pregnancy and that in the midst of this debate we are all asking each other the wrong thing. It is not a question of when life begins or even of bodily autonomy, it is simply a question of whether or not one group’s chosen moral beliefs can be forced onto another. The answer is unequivocally no — and in 1700 words I shall endeavor to convince you why.

Two topics often get raised when discussing abortion, the first being whether or not people should have autonomy over their own bodies.The left argues that everyone should have bodily autonomy, and since a fetus is part of a person’s body, that person gets to decide what happens with it. The right argues that everyone should have bodily autonomy, and since a fetus is a separate body, the person carrying the fetus does not have the right to decide what happens to it, since it is not their body. This is an argument chasing its tail because we have already decided that you cannot be forced to use your body to save the life of another, even if you are the reason that life is threatened to begin with. To give an extreme hypothetical, let’s say you cause a car crash that kills you and injures the other person so badly that they need an organ transplant, and you’re a match to save them. If you are not an organ donor, you cannot be forced to give up an organ to save their life. Even in death you cannot be forced to use your body to save someone’s life without your consent.

But what if it’s not saving a life but intentionally ending one? Does bodily autonomy apply then? Some argue that abortion is murder, and murder is unanimously agreed upon as being bad, ergo abortion is bad and punishable by law. This, however, is a matter of opinion based on chosen morals, which leads to the second commonly debated topic — is the fetus a living body? If so, when does life begin? Some people argue it begins at conception, others claim it begins at birth, and many more pick some arbitrary point in between. If life begins at conception, it should be illegal to have an abortion because that would be murder. If life begins at birth, you should technically be allowed to have an abortion anytime up until delivery (nevermind how ridiculous it sounds to have an abortion a month out from your delivery date). This question ends in a dead end because we may never come to a definitive answer. Because there is no definitive answer as to when life begins, it comes down to moral philosophy, which begs the question, should one group’s moral philosophy determine the legislation in this country? Queue a resounding no. For one thing, we have a separation of church and state, so any objection on religious grounds is null and void, as religion cannot be an influence over legislation. Furthermore, the idea of any group forcing others to ascribe to their own belief system is unconstitutional. Granted, at some point someone’s beliefs have to be made into law, we could never get every single person in the country to agree unanimously on every single thing. But on issues regarding personal matters, where a legal person’s safety or general well-being is not threatened, and there is not a clear majority, the choice should be with the individual. As I mentioned before, Republicans believe the fetus should be a legal person, but as this is neither codified in law nor agreed upon by a vast majority, that is a matter of opinion and does not meet the criteria allowing that group to impose their beliefs on others.

I would also like to posit another thought. Even if life begins at conception and even if the fetus is a living being, does aborting it equate to murder? Suppose a young adult gets into an accident which causes them to fall into a coma and they have to be kept on life support to survive. The doctors say there is little to no chance of recovery, so their parents eventually make the difficult decision to take them off life support. Could they be charged for murdering the young adult? Could the doctor? The person was a living, breathing human with their whole lives ahead of them. Maybe they could have cured cancer. Does removing them from life support constitute murder? The law says no. In this case, it is not only reasonable, but also likely for the best to end the life of this person, and it does not equate to murder. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is similar in that you are choosing to end the life (I say “life” for argument’s sake) of a non-sentient being. In cases like these, the lines are blurred and it is no longer clear whether ending a life is murder or not. There are those who believe you should never take anyone off life support for any reason, and that’s ok. That is their choice to make. But the fact remains that for those who decide to make that tough decision, it is valid under the law and is not murder. It is simply doing what you believe is best. Abortion is the same. The decision on whether it is a bad thing or not can not be definitively made except by personal moral philosophy, therefore, people must be given the ability to choose for themselves what is right. If you object to abortion, simply do not have one. But your beliefs do not dictate the actions of others.

Beyond the fact that personal moral beliefs should not be imposed on others is the chilling knowledge that banning abortions disproportionately affects marginalized groups — particularly poor people of color. According to a study done by the American Journal of Public Health, women of color are overrepresented in abortion patients, with Black women accounting for the highest abortion rate at 27.1 out of 1000 women (compared to White women who only accounted for 10 out of 1000). Of those who get abortions, almost half of them have a family income of less than 100% the federal poverty line. Considering that the average cost of giving birth in a hospital can range from $5000 to $11,000 when done vaginally, or $7,500 to $14,500 when done via Cesarean section (c-section), unplanned pregnancies set people up for economic disaster from the start. Taking into account the added costs of prenatal care, postnatal care, and potential emergencies during delivery, the cost of carrying a pregnancy to term skyrockets. This puts an unnecessary financial burden on the pregnant person, who statistically is likely living at or below the federal poverty line.

In the early 90s, the United States saw levels of crime decrease dramatically. At the time, many attributed it to Reagan’s war on drugs. Further investigation proved that it was not the war on drugs that caused the drop in crime levels, but rather, a decision made 20 years prior. Roe v Wade. When Roe v Wade passed, the number of abortions rose and as such, the number of babies born into poverty plummeted. So when the time came, 20 years later, for those babies-turned-young-adults to follow the cyclical path poverty often leads to and commit crimes, they didn’t. Because they were never born.

People like to pose “what-ifs” about unborn babies all the time. What if they grow up to become President? What if they cure cancer? These are all hypotheticals, and abstract ones at that. What we do have is real, tangible evidence of what happens if abortions are banned. People with unplanned pregnancies are often hurled further into poverty and the babies they are forced to have turn into adults who often fall victim to the vicious cycle of crime, poverty, and desperation.

For people with uteruses, this is especially unfair as they are often the ones to bear the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy while their partners, who share equal responsibility, escape unscathed. Those with uteruses are forced to endure nine painful months of pregnancy, which causes lasting physical and psychological damage while their partners get to live in blissful peace. Those with uteruses are forced to endure the condemnation and judgment from those around them while their partners’ reputations remain perfectly intact. And finally, those with uteruses must bear the long-term, life-altering consequences of an unplanned pregnancy while their partners have the option to simply walk away. This inequality is what underscores the necessity to keep abortion legal. The only way to make people born as women equally in control of their lives as people born as men is to give them the same ability as men to not be pregnant at any given moment, or to have a baby if they so choose. Otherwise, they are unequal in this country simply for being born with a uterus.

Whether you believe abortion is right or wrong does not matter. What matters is that you, and everyone else, is able to make that choice for themselves. Because so much of the abortion debate is based in personal beliefs, like religion, it would be unethical and unconstitutional to allow one group to legally impose their beliefs on another. Taking away a person’s choice on how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy is an act of gross inequality, the consequences of which are calamitous on both a personal and national socioeconomic scale. Giving people the power to make their own reproductive decisions solves the problem. When each person is granted the ability to choose what they would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, everyone can still adhere to their own moral philosophies.The choice is theirs. I believe in equality under the law. I believe in reproductive freedom. I believe in being pro-choice. And I believe abortion must remain legal, if only to preserve that freedom of choice.

---

1. Jones, PhD, Rachel K, and Jenna Jerman, MPH. “Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014Rache.” American Journal of Public Health, https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042.

2. Fetters, K. Aleisha, and Hiranmayi Srinivasan. “Giving Birth in a Hospital? Here Is What to Expect.” What to Expect: Hospital Birth Costs, 18 Mar. 2021, https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/