|
I get really sick of hearing how people who support banning abortion refer to themselves as "Pro-Life." As if their opposite doesn't appreciate life in every form.
The people who refer to themselves as "Pro-Life" often refer to their opposite as "Pro-Abortion" instead of the accurate term: "Pro-Choice." Pro-Choice means that if you do not desire an abortion, you shouldn't get one, BUT if you feel as if you need one, you should be able to get one in safe and legal conditions.
Some may make the inverse claim that "Pro-Lifers" are making, that "Pro-Life" in this case is actually "Anti-Choice." Some may argue that would be extreme to refer to it as such. I, however, don't think so, but that argument is for another time. That said, I do not believe that those who call themselves "Pro-Lifers" are truly "Pro-Life."
Let's take the term "Pro-Life" at its basic etymology. Pro means supporting, and life means the state of being alive. Most would not argue against this rationale so far.
Thus, "Pro-Life" means that people support the state of being alive, both the individual and others. For the sake of this essay, let's focus on the aspect of keeping other people alive.
So, what would a true "Pro-Life" position entail?
Let's start at the root of the argument: abortion. In this case, I will concede that, to be purely "Pro-Life," one cannot support abortion other than in a position where the mother's life is in danger -- a situation in which more than one life is in stake. An abortion is indeed a cancellation of a potential life (keyword being POTENTIAL), so a position which preserves life would involve not supporting abortion.
However, one has to realize why people get abortions. Much of the time, it has to do with a potential lack of birth control. A true "Pro-Life" position would involve supporting the availability of birth control so that people will not be put into the compromising position of feeling the need to sacrifice a potential human life.
Also, many people -- both in America and worldwide -- are dying of reasons of impoverishment, such as homelessness, hunger, and cold. True "Pro-Lifers" would support doing whatever it takes to counter these societal ills and provide the poor of our world with all of the shelter, food, and clothing which would be necessary to survive and be healthy. This would include paying more in taxes to fund endeavors so that we in the United States -- the world's lone superpower -- can do so.
Speaking of the United States and the world scope, one who takes a "Pro-Life" position would take a firm stand against war, especially for purposes which could be summed up as political. Wars cost lives, simple as that, and while some may argue that even political wars are waged to save lives in the long term, there is ample historical evidence to suggest that this simply doesn't come true. Thus, a "Pro-Lifer" would do what it takes to make sure that war does not occur.
The sole exception to this case is fighting genocide (and no, Saddam Hussein was not genocidal, so don't attempt to argue that point). Genocide -- the mass extermination of life regarding a specific group or groups of people -- is the diametric opposite of "Pro-Life", and one who supports a "Pro-Life" position would adamantly demand that if their government can do something -- anything -- to capture and detain those who commit genocide, they do so. Yes, this may also include paying more taxes, but a "Pro-Lifer" would rationally argue that it would be worth paying more to preserve life, especially on a massive scale.
A "Pro-Life" position would also entail the support of stringent gun-control laws. The use of guns on people takes lives. It might be cool to own or collect guns, but let's face facts: one who is "Pro-Life" would work to ensure that the possibility of a gun taking a life is minimal.
"Pro-Life" would also mean unquestionable opposition to the death penalty. One could argue that since the perpetrator killed someone, he or she should be killed in return for not respecting the sanctity of life. That is an understandable position, but it is not in the spirit of the maintenance of life. A "Pro-Life" position would insist that the murderer not be killed, as state-sponsored execution is still the taking of life.
The final aspect of a true "Pro-Life" position would involve the support of a universal health-care system. Giving all people, regardless of any conceivable status, the opportunity to receive the medicine and care which they need, will usually help to extend people's lives, both in quantity and quality. This is "Pro-Life" at its core. True, this would also require paying more in taxes, but if one is truly for the preservation of life, it would be wholly worth the extra money to ensure that life is indeed preserved.
This is the summation of a position which is genuinely "Pro-Life." Do I fit into this category? No, for I support a woman's right to choose if she wants an abortion, as well as the fact that I waver when it comes to the death penalty. However, the vast majority of people probably don't support the entirety of this position.
That said, to honestly refer to oneself as "Pro-Life," one needs to personally accept each of these positions. Most of those who refer to themselves as "Pro-Life" -- i.e. those who oppose abortion rights -- do not support the stances on many of the other issues which are listed here.
In other words, one issue doesn't define an all-encompassing title, and those who say they're "Pro-Life" aren't actually so.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
