Pro-Life. Pro-Choice. Two socially-acceptable ideas based on the principal of life and death for humans in regards to abortion and euthanasia. For every person, each statement can and does mean a variety of different things. Ultimately, it’s completely up to interpretation.
Pro-Life can be defined as the opposition and disapproval of abortion and/or euthanasia. Pro-Life supporters believe in the complete gestation of a Human fetus into infancy, regardless of the needs or health of its host, a human female. From conception to birth, according to Pro-Life supporters, a fetus has much right to life in the womb as those who exist and survive outside of the womb. A woman pregnant with a fetus should not have the option to abort it, but rather embrace it and nourish it willingly until it is received into this world as a newborn infant.
Pro-Choice can be defined as the acceptance and approval of abortion and/or euthanasia. Pro-Choice supporters believe that the pregnant female, not the fetus, has the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full-term, for whatever reason the pregnant female wishes to personally have. In some cases, a pregnancy must be terminated for health reasons. In other cases, a pregnancy is terminated for social reasons, such as a lack of financial support, emotional support, mental health, etc.
Seems pretty cut-and-dry, right? Wrong.
Here’s the deal. There are many Pro-Life supporters who are omnivores, support the Death Penalty, support acts of war, participate in animal hunting for sport, are theists (believe in a God), support gun ownership and rights, etc.
On the flip side, there are many Pro-Choice supporters who are vegetarian or vegan, anti-Death Penalty, anti-war in all parts of the world, anti-hunting, are atheists (do not believe in a God), anti-gun rights/ownership, etc.
It all seems a little hypocritical, doesn’t it? Certainly.
From the Pro-Life perspective, a supporter can expect to fight for the voice of a fetus, who, if brought to full-term and is born, would have the same rights as any currently living human being. Pro-Life supporters thrive in human rights: the right to bear arms, the right to enact justice against those who have committed heinous crimes, etc. Pro-Life supporters do what they can to preserve human life, so long as those humans share similar values and demographics (more on that another time).
In the process of preserving human life, Pro-Life supporters often neglect animal rights in favor of human rights. The same people who support the rights of unborn human being also feast upon butchered bits of pork, beef, chicken, and fish. The same people who deny a woman the right to decide what is best for her body and family wear leather shoes, carry a leather wallet, fill their homes with leather furniture, use beauty products that have been tested on countless animal species, including dogs, rabbits, monkeys, etc.
From the Pro-Choice perspective, a supporter believes that the expecting mother, father, and doctor are the only ones who really have a say in whether or not a fetus is brought to full-term.
Ultimately, it is up to a woman to determine what is best for her body and her family. Since no other living being has the responsibility of carrying around a growing fetus for 9 months, no one else really has the right to determine what happens to the fetus prior to birth. Some supporters believe that not even the biological father should have the same level of choice as the mother, unless he would like to sign up for giving birth through his own sexual organs… Good luck. Essentially, Pro-Choice supporters value the “my house, my rules” type of mentality, except the house is actually a uterus.
Humans, more than any other species on Earth, have the ability to make profound decisions that affect the livelihood of not only other humans, but other species as well. For example, a deer may choose to tempt fate by running across a busy highway, but humans ultimately chose to build such a highway in the middle of the deer’s habitat.
Many carnivorous animals have no choice but to eat other animals to survive as they do not know that they can survive on vegetarian diet alone. Their hunt is compassionate, necessary, and respectable. Humans have developed in such a way that all humans could sustain a long, healthy, vegetarian lifestyle, but many choose not to. We hunt for sport and for nourishment, both of which are neither necessary, compassionate, or respectable.
The power of choice can be a vicious cycle, but it’s a basic human right we all have the privilege of experiencing in every aspect of our lives.
If you support the gestation of a fetus into a baby, but care not as to how that baby will be fed, clothed, loved for, and raised, then you’re a hypocrite. If you don’t care how a cow might’ve been slaughtered in the process of becoming your dinner, but you believe a woman has committed murder by terminating her pregnancy, then you’re a hypocrite.
To be Pro-Life should mean to be pro-existence, and pro-coexistence. Pro-Life should mean less war, more diversity, less violence, more love, less bacon, more gardens, less greed, more free trade, less abandonment, more adopted children, less poverty, more sustainable economic growth, etc. To be Pro-Life should mean to be Pro-Choice, and vice-versa.
Live the best life that you can and helping others learn to do the same. I do not have the right to determine what my neighbor has for lunch today, nor should I ever have that right. We should all have the right to choose whether or not we keep our cake, and eat it too.