"You're Not Pro-Life"

Recently I explained that I am not "anti-abortion;" I am "pro-life." I am not concerned about terminating pregnancies; I'm concerned about killing human beings. (That science confirms that the human life begins at the point of fertilization and ends at death is not up for contention. Whether or not it's a "person" at some point or another might be, but "human life" is not in question.) This, of course, is rational and reasonable, but it will certainly not move anyone who is pro-abortion. (I use the term here to indicate those who are advocates of abortion as opposed to those who aren't necessarily opposed to abortion but haven't actually done much thinking on it.) The pro-abortion folks will tell you -- trust me, they already have -- that "you're not pro-life because ..." and fill in a variety of possible reasons. You're not pro-life if you don't adopt all the kids that no one wants. You're not pro-life if you don't advocate a free preschool-through-college education for all kids. You're not pro-life if you don't favor free healthcare for all. The list goes on -- concepts like human trafficking, poverty, income equality, spousal abuse, the death penalty, etc. If you're not fighting on these fronts, you're not pro-life.

Let me point out a few flaws in this objection to the "pro-life" moniker.

1. The message is clear. "You say you're pro-life but you're not because you don't do what we define as 'pro-life.' Therefore, you're not in promoting life." What they fail to say, but is unavoidable from this position, is "Neither are we." It is a tacit admission that life is not their concern or priority. It follows necessarily that their statement is "We do not support life" as well. While we are deemed (sometimes incorrectly) "anti-abortion," it would appear that they could rightly be called "anti-life" to at least some degree.

2. The subject of "life" is huge. Life has requirements under all sorts of conditions and all sorts of ages and is incredibly complex. If Person A points at Item 1 that is a matter of life but neglects Item 243, that doesn't mean that Person A is not pro-life. It means that the topic of life is huge, and it means that Item 1 is the biggest sticking point at this moment. If human lives were not being legally terminated before they were born, the dialog could proceed to Item 243.

3. Life has all sorts of components, but sometimes I think we're supplying peripheral ones. For instance, "quality of life" is big ... but is it real? "Quality of life" refers to the standards of health, comfort, happiness, etc. that a person or group experiences. The difference between "life" and "quality of life" is that without "life," quality doesn't happen. Conversely, life without quality of life is still life. Connecting quality of life to pro-life is confusing categories. And we can discuss quality-of-life issues once we've secured life, but because we're not currently in a quality-of-life discussion doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It means that it doesn't matter for the lives that are being terminated. So "You aren't pro-life because you don't support a universal healthcare law" is a non sequitur. Can we discuss the lives you are ending before we discuss the health of the rest? We don't tell the researchers, "Stop trying to cure cancer when we have so many other health problems to deal with," do we? It is true that there is a lot more to "pro-life" than stopping abortion. It's just that this is the current fire (killing more human beings than any other cause of death) we're trying to put out. The other side of this coin is that the pro-abortion side actually believes that the value of a life is tied to its quality of life (consider their stance on euthanasia) while the pro-life side holds that human life has intrinsic value. So we're talking about a fundamental difference of valuation of human life. And that is at the core of this discussion.

4. It is, ultimately, a no-win situation. I know of quite a few people who are deeply committed to many/most of the issues that are on those lists of things that "must be addressed" and these people are pro-life. They want to save the lives of children in the womb. They have adopted and worked toward getting others adopted. They do help out new mothers, people who need help, etc. They're actually doing this stuff. But if you point this out, it is discarded. That is, it doesn't matter if there actually are pro-life people that meet the over-the-top requirements of the pro-abortion crowd for defining "pro-life." They will not admit that "pro-life" exists. If you point out that it does, they will dismiss it. Their objection is falsifiable, but they reject that. Bottom line, they don't care about the question of life. The question of personal freedom is the only one they care about in this context. It is, then, merely a smoke screen.

Pro-life simply means that we value human life. Some aspects related to human life are of more or less concern, but we value human life. That is, killing humans is a higher priority to address than making living humans more comfortable. Can we make that distinction and still be pro-life? Logically, sure. But if the goal is to deny the point, then, logic here will be denied. Ultimately, the question is not about human life or not. The question is about autonomy. Do I get to decide what I do? You'd think that it is patently obvious that we don't. We make laws for that purpose. But this question of the life of the unborn stands in the face of "I can do what I want with my body" whether that's to do that which causes babies or to do with babies what I want. That's why "It's life" doesn't matter to so many. It's not even heard over the ever increasing screech of "I will be like the Most High!"