“Anti-choice” is the epithet hurled by libs. “Reproductive rights” is their favorite catch phrase. Some like Thomas Freidman draw ridiculous moral equivalence criteria to twist “pro-life” into a term meaning that one is in favor of a laundry list of big-government policies. Others don pink tee shirts to strut and preen on a Youtube video chanting "Yes we plan".
The rhetorical imagery Libs use call forth visions of the 1997 movie "Alien Resurrection" where women were chained on their backs in laboratories continuously being inseminated and impregnated, giving birth to one horrific parasitic creature after another. REALLY?
Are these images accurate? Does restricting abortion oppress women or deny them the right to participate in society? Consider these five hypothetical women...
Woman A says to herself "I'm still in school, and will be for several more years. My education is important to me, and it would be disastrous for me if I got pregnant now. Therefore, I won't be having sex with anyone, even if it means that guys won't date me". She is making a reproductive choice. Notice that no one is forcing her to wear a burka or a chastity belt.
The following three women are unmarried and pregnant…
Woman B and the father of her child decide to get married and parent their child together, even though they had planned on waiting awhile for their wedding. She is making a reproductive choice. Notice that no one is threatening to place her in stocks in the public square.
Woman C and the father of the child are no longer together. Perhaps she got “carried away”, and had sex with an acquaintance. Perhaps the relationship had already fallen apart. She says to herself, "I've got a good job and a good support system. I will raise my child as a single mother and make the father contribute to the child's support". Notice that no one is taking her hostage.
Woman D is also no longer involved with her child’s father. She says to herself "I realize that in order for a child to have the best prospect for life, he needs two parents who are committed to each other. Therefore I will place my baby up for adoption
And then there’s a fifth woman who reads Glamour and Cosmo and who sees sex as a pleasure and singleness as a way of life…
Woman E says to herself "I think the idea of getting married and committing to one man is absurd. I like sex, and I want to have it with whomever I want, whenever I want whether my partner is someone I've been friends with for years, or someone I meet at a bar. I do not want children. Therefore, since I know I don't want children, and I know intercourse causes pregnancy, I will have my tubes tied or use an Essure implant or some other form of long term contraception, so I can live as I damn well please and not have to worry". She is making a reproductive choice. Notice that no one is making her wear a scarlet letter.
That's five choices
2. marriage to the father, and parenting the child
3. single parenting
5. Sterilization/long term contraception
In all these previous cases, the woman has made a reproductive choice. Notice that no one is threatening to stone any of them.
Each choice outlined above involves a woman taking responsibility for her own actions, rather than taking an innocent life for her own convenience.
So how, pray tell do any of these choices “oppress” any of these women? Each of these women is free to work, attend school or participate in society in any way she wants. Who is denying these women any “rights”?
Please notice that each of these choices involves mental processes that are characteristic of adult decision making. An adult learns to evaluate potential future risks and take steps in the present to minimize or avoid them (steps like using birth control). An adult assumes economic responsibility for the means to avoid the steps taken. When an adult miscalculates a risk, or an unexpected contingency arises (like the birth control failing), she takes responsibility and puts aside her immediate satisfaction rather than sacrifice the welfare of an innocent person affected by her choice.
Compare and contrast the profiles above with the Handmaid’s Tale Lib fantasy where roving gangs of Bible thumping government agents in trench coats barge into drugstores and supermarkets to confiscate contraceptives, and force women into barefoot pregnant subservience. According to Lib hyperbole, if those horrible “anti-choicers” win elections, women will be chained inside their homes; their only choice would be between being trapped in their bedrooms in sexual slavery or in the kitchen raising a passel of snot-nosed brats.
Libs seem to believe that women are incapable of self-control. In fact many see the idea of setting boundaries and bypassing immediate pleasure for long term gain as being ridiculous. Like two-year olds trapped in adult bodies they scream “sex is fun and I WAAAAAANNNNTTT it! I owe my lifestyle to the convenience of legal abortion”. As shown in the snarky Lena Dunham ad, those who do show restraint are looked upon with pity or held up for ridicule. They either "have issues" or are too unattractive to find interested partners. Women don't seem to have any interests aside from their "lady parts".
So WHO’S “anti-choice”? It isn’t those who believe that an unborn human life is worthy of protection, not disposable chattel and property.
So WHICH position is insulting to women? Not the one who sees women as adults, not perpetual adolescents who need to be shielded from the consequences of their choices.