Making Sense of the Pro-Life Movement
By: Dr. Dion
Tags: Pregnancy, Politics, Abortion, Pro Life, Pro Choice

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice have been the terms of record for the abortion movement for decades. Pro-life means no right to an abortion — except in certain circumstances usually beyond the woman’s control. Pro-choice means the woman gets to decide to terminate a pregnancy or not and — for the most part — other people butt out.

Many — perhaps even most — of the members of the no-abortion group tie their position on the issue to their religious faith, whether Christian or some other religious tradition. They often say it is their faith that causes them to vehemently oppose the taking of a human life.

This is a noble view of life that millions of Americans hold and should not be discounted by the millions of Americans who hold a different view.

The nobility of this view is eroded, however, whenever the value of a human life seems to vary depending on external factors such as the race, gender, age, nationality, and socioeconomic status of that life or the political expediency of defending life in the public square.

There are several ways that the “pro-life” argument breaks down and provides space for critics to attack the no-abortion group.

First, an abortion, or the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, is a reactive measure taken to remedy an unwanted pregnancy. It is like getting a filling in your tooth to fix a cavity. The filling is a reactive measure taken to remedy an unwanted cavity. However, the better approach — or so we have been taught for years — is to avoid getting the cavity in the first place by limiting candy and sweets, brushing and flossing, and visiting the dentist regularly. In this case, education and resources are provided as preventive measures so that the cavity never occurs.

The same approach works in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. By providing pregnancy prevention education and resources, women are equipped with the preventive measures they need so that the unwanted pregnancy never occurs.

The time, money, energy and passion that are consistently devoted to denying women access to abortions would actually do so much more to advance the pro-life cause if they were devoted to reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The stated goal of the no-abortion group would be achieved — reducing the number of abortions — but in a way that does not burden women with the emotional toll of guilt, shame, loneliness, depression, fear, and loss that is often associated with abortions, even when the woman believes she has made the right decision.

The passion that the no-abortion group invests in saving the lives of the unborn does not always translate to caring for the lives of the born. In recent years, the federal government has taken Draconian measures to limit illegal immigration at the Southern Border. These steps have included actions that would certainly border on crimes against humanity (human life) such as separating children from their parents, making children sleep on concrete floors in steel cages, with blankets made from aluminum foil, failing to reconcile parents and children, forcing women to have hysterectomies against their will, and prosecuting good Samaritans who were caught trying to provide water and nutrition for individuals crossing the border illegally.

Each of these actions seems unspeakably cruel at face value. Many of these actions have been taken by federal officials who profess to be “pro-life.” Additionally, “pro-life” supporters of these “pro-life” officials — including many who claim to be “pro-life” because of their religious faith — have been largely silent on these serious abuses.

Perhaps some who consider themselves pro-life can justify their silence on this behavior because these individuals are not citizens. They or their parents have committed crimes. Illegal immigration is just that — illegal. Perhaps they believe the crime of crossing a nation’s sovereign border deserves the punishment of caging or never seeing your child again or being sterilized. Perhaps that is how they can explain the inconsistency. Perhaps that is how they can look the other way.

Still, that fails to explain the lack of value for the lives of American citizens.

Many “pro-life” officials advance laws and policies that deny Americans access to living wages, healthcare, and even food. Admittedly, one can live without earning a living wage. In theory, one could also live without access to healthcare. But no one can live without food — not for long.

What is the point of being so passionate, so adamant about women seeing unwanted pregnancies through to term and delivering a baby, only to say, now it is not the government’s responsibility to feed, house, clothe, heal or help this child to thrive? What sense does that make? Why would the same people who insist that the government swoop in and guard all uteruses decide on the day of delivery that the government’s work is done? It’s all on you now, they say. If you sink or swim; if you fly or crawl; if you thrive or if you die. It is no longer the government’s concern.