The Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Debate: What Those Terms Really Mean

 There is probably not a more polarizing issue in American politics today than the debate over abortion.  Much like the slavery debates in the 1800's, abortion is something that terrifies each side when the other gains the majority in power for one primary reason: each side is hell-bent on assigning weighted value to a human life.  The left will tell you that laws should almost exclusively focus on the well-being of expectant mothers, while the right focuses their energies on the rights of the unborn child with the same fervor.  Each side has created a platform that leads their followers to think that one has intrinsically more value than the other, and therefore is more deserving of protection under the law.  They've also created a false vocabulary that we must first understand and correct if we ever hope to come up with reasonable public policy on this critical human rights area.  Let's start by breaking that vocabulary down:

"Pro Life" as opposed to "Anti-Abortion"

What a great phrase for the right to rally around: we are the party of LIFE, they'll tell you.  We will defend the life of the unborn with every fiber of our beings!  After all, who could POSSIBLY object to the notion that a human child, unable to speak for itself, needs people of conviction to speak on their behalf?  Here's where that breaks down.  Ever since the Supreme Court struck down Roe and put the issue in the hands of states, there has been a rush to pass laws that demand women carry a child to term with absolutely no consideration of the possible health ramifications to those women.  In their fervor to "protect the voiceless child", they have completely ignored that the mother is just as worthy of protection under the law.  Reducing women to the role of walking incubator is NOT a pro-life stance.  Any law that leads one to think one human life is worth protecting while another can be discarded is NOT pro-life policy.  To say nothing of the fact that the "pro life" movement has a troubling history of violence against doctors and clinics that perform abortions; how is it "pro life" to take the life of someone with whom you disagree?  This is also a group that is largely pro-Death Penalty, which again cuts down the ability to take their life promoting bona fides seriously.  If you REALLY want to break the cycle of the "culture of death", you must start from a position that fully recognizes and vigorously defends EVERY human life at every stage of it.  What passes as "pro life" policy fails spectacularly in this regard.

"Pro Choice" Morphed into "Pro Abortion"

Don't think the right has cornered the phrasing market; the left has their own equally compelling rallying cry.  After all, the right to choose for oneself is fundamental to the American identity.  Who could possibly object to the notion that a person has the inalienable right to decide what is in their own best interest?  But again, the reality is that the left has embraced a position that focuses sole support on a woman while reducing the unborn child to an entity not even worthy of consideration, let alone protection.  Put another way: if a woman gives birth to a child, leaves that child in a dumpster and that baby dies, virtually nobody (left, right or anywhere in between) is going to object when that mother is arrested for murdering that child (yes, boys and girls, murder is still wrong); yet, somehow we're supposed to believe that if that same baby was aborted by a doctor the day before being born (as is allowed in NY & CA), somehow that is permissible?  They would have you believe that since a doctor ended that life, yes the SAME life whose termination in a dumpster sparked your outrage, somehow it was an act of mercy for the mother.  Furthermore, more often than not those who cling to the notion of "choice" are the ones most vocally against giving women an ACTUAL CHOICE.  They vilify and denigrate women who would dare seek out adoption or other means of providing a life for their newborn if they are unable to do so themselves.  They attack organizations that try to provide support and counseling to young mothers and hold up Planned Parenthood as a glowing example of a women's health provider even though PP can't seem to survive in states where restrictions on abortion exist.  Is provision of abortion the end all, be all of women's health needs?  Somehow I doubt that.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

I am a big believer in the power of words, and so when it comes to taking a stance on an issue I try really hard to call things what they actually are.  Our laws are being polarized into pro- vs. anti-abortion, so let's drop the euphemisms of "pro life" and "pro choice" and take an honest look at what our society needs.  Each side is genuinely coming from a place of compassion; the problem is, when you assign weighted value to human life you will invariably fail at protecting the very thing you claim is most important which is in fact human life.  Yes, a woman absolutely has the right to make decisions about her own health, and any attempt to deny that right should be resisted.  But, and this is a HUGE BUT, there has to be an acknowledgement that when a woman gets pregnant they are now making decisions for more than one life whether they like it or not.  Any law that prioritizes one of those lives over the other is fundamentally flawed.  Human society recognizes that there are circumstances in which the taking of a life is permitted, but these circumstances are rare, narrowly defined, and come with severe consequences when those boundaries are violated.  Our acceptance of taking the life of an unborn child should be viewed within this context: define reasonable circumstances under which it is permitted, make every reasonable effort to ensure mothers who make that choice can do so safely and with all the support needed for them to deal with the trauma of that choice, and provide meaningful punishment to those who take a life outside of those parameters (including the doctors who assist them).  Getting there will require honest conversations, vocal debate, and ultimately compromise.  But, that is supposedly what our Republic is all about.  Now, if someone would just tell that to Congress...