From Pro-Life to Pro-Choice:
A Journey Through Values, History, and Bodily Autonomy
In my early 20s, my political views on several issues were worlds apart from what they are today. One issue I cared deeply about at the time was abortion. I described myself as "pro-life" and, like many others, believed I held a moral high ground. But beliefs are not static; they evolve, especially when challenged by new perspectives, experiences, and evidence.
To understand my shift, I first had to untangle the factions within the so-called "pro-life" movement. I now distinguish between two dominant strains: the "Pro-Life" movement, which often allows for exceptions such as rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and the "Abortion Abolitionist" movement, which generally rejects exceptions outright. Back then, my views aligned more with the former, but both camps fundamentally rooted their positions in religious ideology—a fact that would come to trouble me.
A Historical Perspective
Many might be surprised, as I was, to learn that abortion wasn’t always the evangelical lightning rod it is today. Historically, Protestant denominations approached abortion with more nuance. Before the 1970s, evangelicals often viewed life as beginning at birth, not conception1.
Consider W.A. Criswell, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, who initially supported the Roe v. Wade decision, reasoning that life began when a child existed independently from its mother2. Though he later changed his stance, his initial position wasn’t uncommon among evangelicals of his time. Even in 1968, Christianity Today, a flagship evangelical magazine, reflected divided opinions on abortion.
So, how did abortion become the galvanizing issue for the religious right? The story traces back to the desegregation battles of the 1960s and 1970s. After Brown v. Board of Education, white evangelicals founded private religious schools—often dubbed "segregation academies"—to maintain racial separation. But by the 1970s, federal efforts to desegregate these institutions, epitomized by the Bob Jones University tax-exemption case, left evangelicals searching for a new cause.
Enter abortion. Leaders like Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, and Francis Schaeffer reframed it as a moral and religious issue. By the late 1970s, abortion had become the rallying cry uniting white evangelical voters under the banner of the "Moral Majority."
The Argument That Changed Everything
Back when I identified as pro-life, my favorite argument boiled down to one question: When does life begin? I considered it the ultimate "gotcha," often backed by debates about fetal development milestones. Yet, as I delved deeper into these arguments, I found myself increasingly unsatisfied with their foundation.
Today, as a staunchly pro-choice advocate, I’ve realized this question doesn’t determine my position. My perspective is not about when a fetus becomes a person but about the unequivocal personhood of the pregnant individual.
At its core, my pro-choice stance rests on the principle of bodily autonomy. In any situation, who has the right to use another person’s body? The answer is clear: only the person who gives consent. This principle governs everything from sexual consent to organ donation.
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine a five-year-old needing a kidney transplant to survive, with their parent as the perfect match. Legally, we cannot compel the parent to donate their kidney, even if their refusal results in the child’s death. Why? Because bodily autonomy trumps all. The same logic applies to abortion: a fetus has no inherent right to the uterus it inhabits without ongoing consent from the pregnant individual.
The Consent Fallacy
One common counterargument posits that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy. But this logic is flawed. Consent to sex is not consent to all potential outcomes, just as driving a car is not consent to getting into an accident. When accidents happen, we don’t deny victims medical care because they "knew the risks." The same principle should apply to abortion.
What’s more, this argument collapses under scrutiny when considering cases of rape or incest—situations where no consent to sex existed. Yet many abortion abolitionists still advocate for bans with no exceptions, exposing the fallacy of their consent argument.
The Reality of Abortion Bans
While some may treat this debate as an abstract moral exercise, for many pregnant individuals, it is a matter of life and death. Pregnancy, whether planned or unplanned, carries significant health risks, and abortion bans only exacerbate those risks. As maternal mortality rates climb, especially in states with restrictive abortion laws, we must confront the grim reality: these laws cost lives.
Medical science has made childbirth safer than ever, but "safer" does not mean "safe." Denying people access to abortion ignores the dangers inherent in pregnancy and the autonomy of those who bear them.
Moving Forward
My journey from pro-life to pro-choice wasn’t easy, but it was necessary. It required me to question long-held beliefs and confront the historical and ethical foundations of my positions. Today, I advocate for policies that respect bodily autonomy, center on the rights of pregnant individuals, and prioritize evidence-based solutions over ideology.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about philosophy or politics—it’s about real people, their lives, and their choices.