Categories
Opinion

Limiting abortion access isn’t pro-choice

If the only option is to not have an abortion, then there is no choice.

You can’t be pro-choice while also opposing abortion access.

Being pro-choice means you support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, to choose what she wants to do to or with her body, to choose whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy.

Lack of abortion access prevents women from making those choices. If no abortion clinic exists in a woman’s city (as is the case in Lethbridge) or if abortion is against the law where she lives, then it’s irrelevant whether that woman wants an abortion.

If the only option is to not have an abortion, then there is no choice.

Imagine you’re eating at a restaurant. You’ve finished your meal, and the server asks if you’d like to see a dessert menu. You say yes, and they hand you a menu with half a dozen items, all of which have mouthwatering photos and enticing descriptions. Then the waiter says, “Just so you know, the only desert we have available today is vanilla ice cream.”

That’s what being pro-choice looks like when you want to limit abortion access. Limiting access is limiting choice.

If you oppose abortion, then admit that you’re anti-abortion. If you want to limit women’s access to abortion, then don’t hide your misogyny behind a thin veil of counterfeit feminism.

Like this story?

By Kim Siever

I live in Lethbridge with my spouse and 5 of our 6 children. I’m a writer, focusing on political news, social issues, and the occasional poem. My politics are radically left. I recently finished writing a book debunking several capitalism myths. My newest book writing project is on the labour history of Lethbridge.

I’m also dichotomally Mormon. And I’m a functional vegetarian: I have a blog post about that somewhere around here. My pronouns are he/him, and I’m queer.

Comment on this story

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.