The proponents of pro-life and pro-choice have been knocking heads for more than 30 years when it comes to the topic of abortion. Since the Roe v. Wade case, the United States legalized abortion on the grounds that the mother’s health is not at risk and that the child is viable outside the womb.
Are pro-life and pro-choice that different? Can’t a mother be “pro-life” and still CHOOSE not to have a child based on her current resources?
The definition for pro-life states that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns. If a women was raped or if it is determined that the child might be deformed, then the mother is obligated to carry the child to term. What an imposition on the part of the government. Why then do we need human rights or a brain to think for ourselves?
Pro-Life advocates are also against euthanasia, assisted suicide, the death penalty and war. Personally I believe wars are nonsensical.
On the other side of the spectrum, pro-life proponents believe that individuals have unlimited autonomy over their reproductive systems as long as they do not impeach on the autonomy of others.
Since gaining independence, everyone has complete autonomy over oneself. Your actions are your own. If your actions impeach on the rights of others, then you face the consequences. There have been great strides in the field of medicine that takes care of unplanned pregnancies. Abstinence is no longer an option because sex is now accessible everywhere. Let’s try and focus on things that are a bit more pressing.
Let’s focus on: Pro-Human Rights; Pro-Equality; Anti-Starvation; Anti-Global Warming; Pro-World Peace; Pro-Literacy.