We live in a world full of ideas. Some we agree with, some we don't. The abortion exhibit recently displayed by Justice for All certainly brought a number of ideas to the surface; ideas of choice, freedom, responsibility, autonomy, control, life and death.
Our democratic society is fueled by ideas. Not necessary the right ideas, but often the ideas that are most effectively communicated.
To that extent it has been my observation that over the years - and especially last week - pro-choice supporters have controlled the abortion debate through effective communication. One way this has been done is by creating a dichotomy between choice/freedom and the medical procedure of abortion.
Last week, protesters at the exhibit and several Daily Lobo editorials explained how "pro-choice" is different than "pro-abortion," maintaining a distinction between personal choice/freedom and the procedure of abortion. This has been effective, but there is an inconsistency in this message communicated by pro-choice supporters.
Pro-choice supporters uphold a distinction between freedom/choice and the procedure of abortion, but evidently do not allow pro-life supporters to evoke this same distinction. Pro-life groups who focus specifically on the procedure of abortion are accused of restricting personal choice and freedom. Thus abortion is equated with choice. Opposing abortion apparently equals opposing choice/freedom.
Yet pro-choice supporters violate their own equation by claiming a difference between abortion and choice/freedom when advocating their cause. It seems inconsistent to have it both ways. Either abortion equals choice, meaning pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion, or they are separate, meaning that anti-abortion is not equal to anti-choice.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Although there are gray areas that cloud this issue, I tend to agree with the pro-choice supporters who equate abortion with choice/freedom.
It seems clear that one entails the other. However, I do not agree with pro-choice supporters who simultaneously advocate a distinction between abortion and choice/freedom. I feel this is a dangerous idea to allow.
Permitting a distinction between abortion and choice/freedom makes abortion more of a philosophical discussion about human rights and personal freedom, and less about a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. This enables people to take the relativist position of disapproving abortion yet still advocating freedom of choice.
Granted, our society must maintain a high standard of personal rights, yet in every facet of life it has been clearly recognized that personal rights cease when they infringe on the rights of others.
With all the discussion about rights and freedom last week, I hope this issue can receive more attention in the future.
Matt Koschmann
UNM graduate student and instructor
