The Choice at Hand: Defending Autonomy in a Post-Roe America
A 10-year-old in Louisiana, pregnant after a sexual assault, travels hundreds of miles to Illinois for a legal abortion, just to face protesters outside the clinic calling her a murderer (Burga, 2022). A woman in Texas, denied an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy, develops life-threatening sepsis before doctors can intervene, fearing prosecution under the state’s six-week abortion ban (El-Bawab, 2023). An Uber driver in Texas slapped with a lawsuit for unknowingly transporting a woman to a clinic (Bond, 2021). These situations are not hypotheticals; these are real stories from a country where accessing reproductive healthcare has become perilous and dehumanizing.
The re-election of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States has intensified the already contentious debate over abortion rights. Building upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 (Roe v. Wade, 2022), Trump’s administration is expected to further restrict access to abortion services, leaving millions of women to navigate a complex and often hostile landscape of reproductive healthcare. Scientific evidence, ethics of bodily autonomy, and statistical realities demonstrate that abortion is not some casual choice, but often a necessity, proving the importance of trusting women to make the best decisions for them.
Opponents of abortion often equate it with murder, defining murder as “the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). However, this definition does not encompass abortion for two primary reasons: the legality of abortion and the biological distinctions between a fetus and a person. Scientifically, a fetus lacks the neurological structures required for consciousness or pain perception until approximately the 24th week of gestation (Thill, 2023). According to the study conducted by the CDC (Kortsmit et. al, 2022), 93.1% of abortions occur at or before 13 weeks—long before these developmental milestones are reached. Less than 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, a point where fetuses are still not yet independently viable, and these are almost exclusively due to severe complications or threats to the mother’s life (Kortsmit et. al, 2022). Therefore, the vast majority of abortions terminate a potential life, not a sentient one, undermining the claim that abortion is equivalent to murder.
Time-based restrictions like six-week abortion bans, which have gained traction in republican states such as Texas, are particularly problematic (Texas Senate Bill 8, 2021, § 171.203). Most women are unaware they are pregnant at six weeks, making these deadlines functionally the same as a complete ban (Ravitz, 2019). These arbitrary cutoffs ignore the realities of pregnancy detection and add unnecessary barriers to healthcare access. Rather than being about protecting life, such restrictions prioritize ideology over practicality and science.
Even if one concedes, for argument’s sake, that a fetus is a person, the ethical implications of forcing someone to carry a pregnancy against their will remain unresolved. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist analogy provides a critical perspective to examine these implications (Thomson, 1971). Imagine waking up to find yourself involuntarily connected to a famous violinist who depends on your kidneys for survival. If you disconnect, the violinist will die, but Thomson argues you are not morally obligated to sustain their life, as it infringes upon your bodily autonomy. Pregnancy mirrors this scenario since a fetus relies entirely on the mother’s body for survival. While termination raises moral questions, it should not override the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. Opponents of abortions often distinguish between “letting die” and “causing to die,” and philosophically, this distinction may hold weight. However, the right to bodily autonomy must take precedence over this debate. Forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will imposes physical, emotional, and psychological burdens that outweigh abstract ethical dilemmas. Terminating a pregnancy is not an act of malice but a deeply personal decision to reclaim control over one’s body.
Abortion is never an easy choice, and reducing it to “right” or “wrong” oversimplifies the lived experiences of women. A majority of those who seek abortions cite economic hardship as the primary reason. Data from the Guttmacher Institute reveals that 75% of abortion patients in 2022 were low-income, with many reporting that they could not afford another child or lacked the necessary support (Guttmacher Institute, 2022). Life is unpredictable; a planned pregnancy can be upended by a change in employment, an eviction, or a devastating medical diagnosis. While some argue that individuals should “plan better,” the reality is that many factors influencing parenthood are beyond one’s control. Bringing a child into unstable or unsafe conditions does not serve the parent, the child, or society. In these moments, the decision to terminate a pregnancy becomes an act of responsibility, acknowledging the need to prioritize existing lives over potential ones.
Trusting women to make this choice acknowledges their unique understanding of their circumstances. Abortion is a deeply personal and emotional decision made with care and consideration—not a cavalier act. Respecting this autonomy is not only a matter of ethics but recognition of women’s capacity to weigh what is best for themselves and their families.
The legal landscape surrounding abortion has turned dystopian in some states, with Texas leading the pact. Senate Bill 8 not only bans abortions after six weeks but also empowers private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion (Texas Senate Bill 8, 2021, § 171.208). This includes doctors, clinic staff, financial supporters, and even ride-share drivers transporting patients. Successful plaintiffs are awarded $10,000, creating a bounty system that incentivizes litigation over compassion (Texas Senate Bill 8, 2021, § 171.208.2.c). The effects of these laws are catastrophic, setting a dangerous precedent for other states to follow. As more states enact similar restrictive measures, abortion access continues to decline and become more inequitable across the United States. Clinics in states with bans have closed, leaving millions of women without safe or legal options. While affluent individuals can often afford to travel out of state for procedures, marginalized communities—those already burned by systematic inequalities—are left with few choices. Many resort to unsafe methods, risking severe injury, complications, or even death (Guttmacher Institute, 2023).
Abortion is not murder. It is a medical procedure grounded in science and personal autonomy. Women face these decisions with care and under difficult circumstances, and they are the ones best positioned to choose what is right for them.