so, abortion rights are supposed to be about choice. i actually think what they're about is bodily autonomy, which is what morgantaler actually said, but we can go with it being about choice.

let's think about that for a second.

what are some other things that are about choice?

well, consent is about choice - they're synonymous concepts, really. and, we recognize that consent cannot be coerced. so, you can't consent when you're drunk, and you can't consent when you're underage and there are some open questions about what consent means when there's relationships of power. by extension, sex work is also about choice, and we don't accept concepts of coercion attached to that, either - we insist that these choices are truly free.

anarchists argue that labour ought to be about choice, while recognizing that the fundamental basis of capitalism is that it isn't. capitalism is the economic system in which we don't allow for meaningful choice in labour decisions. fighting for real choice in labour is what anarchism is all about.

yet, we don't seem to recognize these concepts of coercion when it comes to abortion, for some reason. when somebody gets pregnant, and aborts due to finances, we consider that a choice - while we wouldn't consider sex work to be a choice, in that situation. it's a bit of a contradiction.

we went through something similar to this in the gay movement. the idea that homosexuality was not a choice was so politically important that the actual science got completely ignored. we're slowly getting to the point where we can have a more mature conversation about this, and recognize that accepting that the actual science on this issue is unsettled doesn't mean gay people don't have rights, or that conversion therapy is somehow justified; it's ok to say that being gay is a choice, and that that choice should be accepted and respected for what it is. next gen, hopefully.

likewise, women have been so insistent on demanding that they have bodily autonomy, that they've maybe been less thoughtful than they should be about what that actually means.

so, when i hear a green candidate say things like "well, maybe if women had more options they wouldn't necessarily choose an abortion", i don't interpret that as anti-choice. rather, i interpret that as having a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of what a choice actually is, in context.

supporting the right of women to make this choice should mean ensuring that they have the material conditions to actually make a choice. abortion shouldn't be a hobson's choice, which is what it often is.

and, that's not a centrist position. it's not even a liberal position. this is socialism - and it's truly pro-choice. it's choicier, you could say. so, i would support these positions because i'm pro-choice, not in spite of it.

and, it makes me wonder exactly what mr. singh is thinking when he challenges statements such as this as anti-choice. does he think abortion should be a hobson's choice, as it so often is? or is he just talking out of his cock?

abortion's a gross thing, and most women don't take it lightly. i understand my biology. but, i'd expect that this more subtle approach to this topic would be well-received by most women that have uteri. there's a pro-abortion sub-culture that is kind of psychopathic, and that most people in politics should try to stay away from.

women need to have bodily autonomy, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that their bodies belong to them. but, let's make sure we have a good understanding of what that actually means before we speak.

ms. may should be ripping mr. singh apart for mansplaining this to her, and really just being a general asshole about it.

the liberals are supposed to do better than this