Freedom From What?

The recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, has produced much outrage on the left. Much of the dissatisfaction and unrest is justified in the name of bodily autonomy: to be free is to have an unfettered right to do anything with one’s body. 

Many who protest the decision argue argue that it “overturn(s) women and people’s fundamental rights to make decisions about their body.” The University of California recently issued a statement on the decision, lamenting how it abridges the “right to make private, informed choices about their health care and their futures.” Furthermore, TikTok is inundated with videos under #mybodymychoice, and indignant Instagram posts scream, “keep your laws off my body.” According to the ACLU, abortion must be kept “essential” because it “opens the door to…critical parts of life that everyone should have the ability to choose for themselves,” including “staying true to gender identities.” Their website features storytellers who retell “the liberation they experienced as a result of their abortion.”

These abortion protests and social media outbursts bring into question two views of freedom. The first is rooted in the primacy of the will and autonomy. The second view, known as ordered liberty, lies in moral excellence. Under the former view, the right to abortion is vindicated, but only through the latter can it be viewed as a gross violation of freedom and understood for what it truly is. 

These outbursts that vindicate abortion in the name of bodily autonomy are operating off a different plane of freedom, where freedom is the absence of external constraints. When the goal of freedom becomes “liberation of (the) person from artificial constraints,” so the world can be “what (one) wants it to be,” it is reduced to an exertion of human will. 

George Weigel, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, calls this modern-day phenomenon the primacy of the will. “Here, freedom is simply a neutral faculty of choice, and choice is everything, for choice is a matter of self-assertion, of power. Will is the defining human attribute. Indeed, will is the defining attribute of all of reality.” This accumulates into the “autonomy project” where “human beings are radically autonomous, self-creating ‘selves.'” 

When the curbing of the right to an abortion is viewed as an impediment to exercising one’s will, it creates a poor view of freedom. When freedom means removing limits and aims toward endless autonomy so one can exert their unfettered will, it is nothing more than freedom for license. Morality and traditional values become constraints that hinder this version of freedom. They must be cast off in exchange for autonomy, self-creation, and progress. 

Yet, there is a more ancient notion of freedom that runs antithetical to freedom as the pursuit of radical autonomy or the exertion of human will. This classical view of freedom, known as ordered liberty, aims toward something higher than radical autonomy: the pursuit of moral excellence. Bodily autonomy and self-expression are seen as obstacles to this nobler perception of freedom. 

Aquinas, a proponent of the classical view, believed freedom could only be understood as freedom for excellence, which is the fulfillment of human destiny. Freedom meant not the will to choose anything but the ability to choose wisely, cultivated through the habituation of virtue. When freedom is used to seek the truth, it is a fulfillment of happiness and what we are intended to be as humans, rather than anything we desire or imagine ourselves to be. 

As Weigel writes, “Freedom, in other words, is a matter of gradually acquiring the capacity to choose the good and to do what we choose with perfection.” Like any skill, which must be cultivated to exercise it well, such as woodwork, playing an instrument, or baseball, exercising one’s freedom must also be viewed the same way. The failure to do so would be a misuse of freedom, just like a wrong note on a key or a foul ball. 

In the framework of ordered liberty, one who aims towards endless autonomy and radical individualism actually is enslaved or unfree. They fail to use their freedom wisely. Without moral formation, which bridles the pursuit of bodily autonomy, one is not capable of choosing well.  

The classical conception of liberty, ordered liberty, is the only true fulfillment of freedom. It means one must wisely exercise their freedom to pursue the good. Hence, the second view of freedom which aims toward bodily autonomy and champions the right to abortion is not only a poor view of freedom but a misconception of it. 

So, how does using one’s freedom wisely or exercising ordered liberty look? It starts with realizing that constraints are not bad in themselves and can guide one in the pursuit of moral excellence. This can be difficult for those incensed by the Dobbs decision who wrongly equate freedom with bodily autonomy and self-expression. 

However, there is hope. Yuval Levin, founding editor of National Affairs, uses an example of how the family unit can easily be viewed as a constraint on freedom. Yet, he shows how the family cultivates moral formation, with duties to siblings, parents, and spouses that create joy joy. One finally realizes that family is an expression of freedom bestowed with responsibility, as each member freely loves and forms each other. 

The family unit example is also analogous to how one perceives abortion rights. Abridging the right to abortion can seem like a constraint on bodily autonomy when it is really meant to guide one to use their freedom wisely. And like the traditional family unit, it is a consummation of ordered liberty, if correctly understood. 

When abortion is legalized, it promotes out-of-wedlock births and the striving after one’s endless desires.The right to abortion encourages people to give into their base desires and discourages self-restraint, prudence, and moral probity. It reduces the life of a child to an inconvenience whose memory can be wiped away by a mere doctor’s visit. Virtue is exchanged for license, which makes one unfree in the framework of ordered liberty. As a Brookings Institute study found, “liberalized abortion” removes the “stigma of unwed motherhood” and increases “sexual activity without commitment.” 

So, when freedom is understood as a fulfillment of moral excellence along with the ability to govern our base desires, limiting abortion access becomes a noble pursuit. It is no longer a constraint upon human will, as abortion activists make it, but an expression of ordered liberty that humanizes the life of a child and encourages one to use their freedom well rather than give into moral license. 

Apostle Paul once proclaimed, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13). 

We must abandon the modern conception of liberty that champions the primacy of the will and recommit ourselves to the classical notion of liberty, ordered liberty. Only then can abortion rights be viewed for what they really are, a sacrifice of moral excellence on the altar of bodily autonomy, rendering one incapable of using their freedom wisely. Freedom, rightly understood, should be used to serve others, and abortion serves nothing higher than the self.