system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that a woman who has gone through an abortion(s) cannot justifiably be anti-choice. CMV!

Recently, I have heard a lot about the abortion debate following the Texas legislation that was passed. I have seen several comments and statements from women saying that they once had an abortion but are now anti-choice. This argument simply boggles my mind. 

I understand if the person disagrees with abortion in and of itself (maybe she regretted doing it after the fact, changed her mind, etc.) for her personally. In the future, this woman would therefore make a different choice if faced with an unwanted pregnancy. But the key element there is the choice. The woman's ability to choose in the past allowed her to escape a difficult or impossible situation. If she made that choice in the past, she can more easlity understand why that same option would be necesarry for another woman. I disagree that she could now justifiably oppose another woman's right to make the same choice that she did, especially if she herself benefitted from that same ability to choose. It seems to me that people holding this view only want women to have a choice concerning their body if they themselves are in need of having that option. I see it as taking advantage of the ability to choose, but once that choice is no longer seen as needed, not allowing anyone else to have it. It seems a bit selfish, IMO.  

I do not mean for this post to start a pro/anti-choice debate, simply a discussion over whether this attitude is justifiable. I really would like to be able to understand and respect these individuals' opinions. Help me see what they see and CMV.



**EDIT: Thank you, people of CMV! I'm now realizing how ignorant I had been of all the reasons a person could change their feelings on the issue, as well as the varied opinions that could result.**
gpt
While you're correct that if someone performs an act that they themselves oppose, they are being a hypocrite, being a hypocrite does not mean that someone is wrong or that their stance is less valid (it's also tu quoque to make that argument).  

For example, someone can make a completely sound and reasoned argument as to why smoking is bad, but be a smoker themself.  It doesn't make their argument wrong or weaker...it just means they aren't strong enough to follow it.  Similarly, you could talk to a murderer in prison, and he can validly tell you that he thinks murder is bad, even though he committed it.  It could even be argued that the fact that he committed it *strengthens* his claim about how bad it is, because he is someone with firsthand experience, unlike most people who condemn it.