Pro-choice arguments overlook reality

First, I am a supporter of Duke Students for Life. However, as much as I may agree and disagree with Nicole Nelson’s arguments in her March 22 letter, “Don’t coerce Duke women into choosing life,” I want to address a myth that affects not only abortion legislation but civic action in all realms.

From liberals I often hear something similar to Nelson’s argument: “Conservatives and liberals should agree on a right to make decisions without interference from the government. Yet pro-lifers use their influence to try to force legislation that reduces women’s options.” Instead, having heard (from both sides on different issues) that it is not the government’s place to interfere in “private” decision-making, I rarely have heard this from somebody who consistently believes it.

Often, self-identified pro-choice citizens do not think it’s a parent’s “choice” whether to abandon their female child or whether to educate their children. Many do not think it’s a parent’s “choice” to marry their children off to men twice their age or to put guns in their hands and ask them to fight. These examples beg other important ethical questions, such as the purpose of parenting, when life starts and cultural differences, but these are different questions than one about the government’s interference in private lives.  

Moreover, our current governmental system does not abide by a “personal choice” ethos. Again, this is not directed at Nelson but to those who have not thought through the argument about “choice.” We take for granted that the government tells us we cannot marry close family members, that we cannot be homeless should we choose to be, that the government may commit us to psychiatric institutions, that the government can take our children away from us if we are unworthy parents. I hope those who defend any issue solely or primarily on a “personal choice” basis will ask if the rest of their stances on public policy support that outlook, too.

Leigh Edwards, Divnity School ’12