Have you ever questioned if "pro-life" was merely propaganda by the religious elite to enforce a certain lifestyle that gives them control over people?

Ex: "Right to life" disguised as "the obligation of people to live the lifestyle we want to force them to live"?

Fundamentally, the pro-choice side of the aisle is the side of individual sovereignty and freedom. That includes preserving your right to live a more traditional, conservative life if that's what you so choose. I'm personally of the opinion that many, if not most, women when given sufficient information and life experience, would choose the more traditional, motherhood/housewife lifestyle.

Conversely, the pro-life side of the aisle is one of coercion and slavery. It's the side that attempts to force people (specifically women in this case) to serve the role that the conservative elite want them to serve, regardless of whether or not they consent to it.

In my opinion, the pro-life/anti-abortion ideology is fundamentally un-American, undemocratic, and has no place in a free and open society that values individual sovereignty.

Regardless of your abortion beliefs, the question stems from: if the idea of "choice" itself is a lie promulgated to push agendas, because this concept is used in other instances to avoid responsibility - ex: anti-covid vaccines.

Choice is hardly a lie. It is a privilege.

The expansion of individual choice and sovereignty is one of the key outcomes of progress in civilization and society. Everything we've been doing for the past 12,000 years has been driven by the desire to be free to consume more, work less, and have more freedom to explore our selves and existence. Never before have there been so many people with the freedom to live such an intense variety of lifestyles.

Collectivist responsibility still exists, e.g. taxes, public health, rules of the road, because we will always live in resource constrained world where people necessarily must interact with each other. But more and more, we are able to carve out larger pockets of individual freedom.

It would be incredible to live in a world were we had such control over the spread of disease, that vaccination mandates becomes unnecessary. It would be incredible to live in a world where forced military drafts are long gone. Just like it is equally incredible that we now get to live in a country that doesn't allow chattel slavery.

I fail to see a legitimate reason as to why we must socially regress and revoke a woman's choice over the sanctity of her body.

> "the right to have sex without consequences"

Assuming everyone's consenting and taking care about diseases, why is this a bad thing? Outside the strictures of religious morality?

Let's look at this specific lifestyle then:

> the right to have sex without consequences

Men effectively have this right. Why shouldn't women? We already do a lot to make this a viable lifestyle for everybody (namely, treating STDs inexpensively), why not make it equally available to all?

> Men effectively have this right

Uh, what? Men with guns will come to your house and take you to jail to enforce “consequences”.

The difference in scale between having a financial responsibility you’d probably need to be taken to court over if you denied it vs. being legally required to have a permanently body altering, very risky, possibly emotionally devastating years-long medical ordeal is not remotely the same scale of responsibility.

For having consensual sex with a woman? Not quite.

No, GP is right.

Men aren't free from at least financial responsibility for their biological offspring. Some people actually make the argument that since women have the right to abort, men should have the right to their own "financial/legal abortion" of their parental rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to keep the baby against his consent.

> men should have the right to their own "financial/legal abortion" of their parental rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to keep the baby against his consent.

Up until what point—until the baby is born? Or in Texas, would they have to decide in the first 6 weeks? Or are you arguing that the man should have the right to do this when the child is 1, or 5, or 10 years old?

Alright, I'll buy that argument. It still seems relatively small compared to the consequences imposed on the woman, but it's still a consequence.