One Pro-Lifer's response to "5 Things Pro-Choicers Wish Their Anti-Choice Friends Understood"

I recently came across an article entitled "5 Things Pro-Choicers Wish Their Anti-Choice Friends Understood," which you can view here. Now I can't speak for everyone who calls themselves Pro-Life, just as I'm sure the original author does not speak for all in the Pro-Choice community, but the following is my response.


"1. We want fewer abortions too."

I didn't think this was a common misunderstanding, but if it is, it could be related to some of the signs at protests and some of the articles written by members of the pro-choice movement. I've heard "abortion without apology" and #shoutyourabortion. How is encouraging women to be proud of their abortion going to help lower abortion rates? As for "let’s take the steps we can to limit the number of unplanned pregnancies: accurate education, access to birth control, and access to affordable (or free) health advice and care," I absolutely agree. It is possible to work toward lowering unplanned pregnancy rates and outlawing abortion at the same time.


"2. We Are Pro-CHOICE, Not Pro-ABORTION"

So if someone wanted to legalize theft, you wouldn't call them pro-theft? If you're for something being legal, then you're supporting it. If you want abortion to be legal and socially accepted, then you're for it. Why would you be offended at being called pro-abortion anyway, if there's nothing wrong with abortion?


"3. Banning Abortions Doesn’t Prevent Them"

I've never understood this argument; it is beside the point. Outlawing murder doesn't stop ALL murders; outlawing theft doesn't prevent ALL theft. That doesn't mean either of those should be legal. Outlawing abortion would greatly reduce the number of abortions and allow prosecution of those who perform them anyway. Also, outlawing abortion is not the only focus of pro-life groups. Take the Feminists for Life, who focus on giving women considering abortion real help with whatever situation led them there.


"4. We Think You Shouldn’t Call Yourself ‘Pro-Life’ If You Don’t Support Children"

Agree. What's your point? Just because someone is active against abortion, doesn't mean that's all they ever do with their time.


"5. We Wish You Would Stop Being So Damn Glib"

I ABSOLUTELY agree. Shaming and attacking (verbally or otherwise) women who have abortions or anyone who supports abortion is cruel and useless. Although most of us against abortion do not hate those who have had one, it unfortunately seems that some of the loudest in our group do. I want anyone for abortion and/or who has had an abortion to know that most of us bear you no ill will, but simply hope to change your opinion if we can. I also want any fellow pro-lifers to understand that being cruel has no place in the pro-life movement.

"Using pat platitudes doesn’t add anything to a complicated and necessary discussion. And treating the issue of abortion as if it has an obvious, foregone conclusion is insulting to everyone’s intelligence. We’re better than that." Still agreeing. People may be pro-life or pro-choice for a variety of reasons, and we certainly haven't reached a consensus on the issue.


Also, if the choice in question is the choice to end the life of a human being, born or not, then I suppose you can call me "Anti-Choice," because I'm certainly against THAT "choice."

The Abortion Debate: How we agree, how we disagree, and why I'm confused.

When debating the ethics or legality of abortion, there's one thing I just don't understand. There are plenty of things to disagree about, and I try to see the other side of the argument as best I can. There are many tough situations to consider, and conflicting ideas about what defines a "person," who has a soul, and whether viability should be an issue. There are so many little things to consider, so I expect there to be much disagreement, but I also see a lot of agreement across the line between the pro-life and pro-choice sides.

Let's start with where we agree... The pro-life side wants to end abortion in all or most cases; the pro-choice side want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. I think ending abortion and making it rare are compatible goals. We should be working together to eliminate the things which drive women to abortion, especially those who don't really want to abort. We can work on legislation to help prevent coerced abortions, whether a woman is being threatened by a boyfriend, or bribed by her parents. We can work on helping single mothers go to college or work. We can help to give women a safe refuge from abusive environments. We can promote education about sex, pregnancy, and abortion. Together, there are so many ways we can help women and reduce the number of abortions. Another thing we agree on is the safety of women. As long as abortions are happening, both sides can agree that we want the woman to be safe. An abortion clinic should not be exempted from the health and safety regulations which govern other medical facilities. Abortion clinic workers should not be enabling abusers. If we really tried, we could create legislation together to protect women, without fighting. We all want women to be safe, and the pro-life side should be happy to protect women "in the mean time," while still working to end abortion all-together. Most of us probably also agree that infanticide is unacceptable, that treating women like crap doesn't solve anything, and that we will never agree on everything.

So now the bit where we disagree... Obviously the pro-choice side wants abortion to be legal, and the pro-life side wants it to be illegal. It's not that simple though; even the line between pro-life and pro-choice is pretty blurry. Some want to outlaw abortion altogether; some want exceptions only when the mother is in danger; others want to also have exceptions for rape, incest, and maybe other things; some people want to allow it up to a certain point, whether that's when there's a heart beat, when there's viability, or at X weeks; others want it "safe, legal, and rare" for anyone at any point; there are even a few who think it should be so readily available that it can simply be another birth control method. Speaking of birth control, there's another thing we disagree on, especially within the pro-life side. Some people think all kinds of birth control are fine and good; some think only certain types are ok; a few believe the only acceptable reason to have sex, is to make babies. Some of these people want to legislate these beliefs; others think it is their moral decision, but not a legal issue. Another disagreement which is not split along the life vs choice line, is whether men should even have a say in the abortion issue. Probably the biggest issue on which we disagree, though, is the definition of "Personhood." What makes a person? Does one have to be able to breathe? Live outside the womb? Have a heartbeat? Look like a person? Have unique DNA? Have a soul? How do you know if someone has a soul? Then, if it is a person, other issues arise. What if the baby will die or likely die shortly after birth? What if they are or will be in pain? Is a "mercy killing" an acceptable lesser evil? I have my own opinion, but there is no clear scientific answer to many of these. I can see the argument to disagree with my opinion on these points.

As I said from the start, there is one thing I just don't understand. Now if I have informed myself well enough to form an opinion, and I can understand where the other side is coming from on many of these issues, how can I be confused? I am confused because there is one simple fact, which most of us learned in high school biology, that is still debated by some: that a new life begins at conception. Now you can argue that a new human life does not equal a person, or that an embryo is less valuable than a born baby, but to say that a human embryo is not a human life simply makes no sense. Science has already pinpointed the starting point of a new, unique, living organism, and it makes no sense to argue with this.

In case you've been wondering, I am pro-life. I think abortion should only be legal when it is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. The law should also allow women to get life-saving medications and/or procedures, even if it endangers their unborn child, without fear of punishment. The only methods of birth control I have a problem with, are the ones which can cause abortions; I think men have just as much right to speak about abortion as women do; I believe that if our society took better care of women and babies, the "need" for abortion would be reduced; I think we need to simplify adoptions, as well as open up the chance to adopt to more people, such as single people, and gay couples; and I think that it's better to work together to make abortion rare, than to simply fight about whether to allow it at all.