Everyone is pro, or for, life. Who could be against living? And so this “pro-life” label is nonsense. So called “Pro-Lifers” usually seek only to control women through reproductive Big Brother-ism. These self labelled Pro-Lifers promote control of others (women) through the mechanism of the State. In a way, these crafty people actually exhibit mostly anti-life behaviors. In any case, the reality of abortion is extremely complicated and two things are true: Abortion means taking a human life in utero: The State has no business controlling a woman’s choice to make that moral decision.
Why do thinking people allow the false “pro-life” label to continue? Why does the media allow it by publishing articles describing the two “sides” of the issue as “pro-life” and “pro-choice” as if they were mutually exclusive? Why does no one challenge this erroneous false dichotomy? Is it because the issue is too complicated? Are we afraid of the truth, the real truth of what is going on? Is it just too convenient for us to have a this/that conception of the world? Are we really that simple?
Yes, I think we are. Because it is complicated. And there is much more to promoting life than abstractedly protecting a collection of cells in an autonomous woman’s body. The truth is painful — abortion means a woman makes the choice to end human life. Liberals have to come to terms with this truth. The other truth is that the State does not have a compelling interest in forcing that woman to keep that pregnancy going to natural childbirth. Quite the opposite, in fact. If there is a compelling State interest, it is the preservation of the woman’s autonomy, privacy, and agency. In any case, it is none of the State’s business what choices the woman makes about her body.
The person who wishes to use the State to force a woman to lose her autonomy is not actually pro-life. The misnomer is so painful that I don’t know how it stays in use — for instance, these so called Pro-Life people usually do not condemn the State from taking human life through the death penalty; they rarely oppose wars; they eat meat, wantonly contributing to the misery, suffering, and wholesale slaughter of living sentient God created creatures world wide. No, these “pro-lifers” are anything but for life.
What they are for, sadly — and they cover up with this horrendous doublespeak — is biblically based domination of women. They only wish to force women to submit, to shed their individuality. They seek to employ the State to carry out their devilish desires to subjugate women. It’s made even more sinister when they also trouble the State to also oppose contraception, support for women’s health, and welfare for children and women already living. These people cannot possibly be thinking of the welfare of others no matter how much they cover up their motives with confusing language.
Yes, abortion is almost always wrong from a purely moral standpoint — it is, after all, the conscious choice to terminate a living creature. But it is not the state’s right to take away that moral choice from a woman. This is the important distinction. Abortion should stay legal and safe, even if most often the choice to have an abortion can be seen as immoral. “Pro-lifers”, who really are not pro life, should simply not have an abortion if they are opposed to them. I know I am opposed to abortion. But I will not condone the State taking away a woman’s right to do with her body what she needs to do. That is wrong, simple and clear.