Opening a can of worms, now….
Okay, so the elections are not too far away. Here’s my little rant about terminology regarding, for me, the biggest issue in this election: the pro-life versus pro-choice issue.
Now, seriously. Is it fair that the two sides are answering different questions for self-identification? No! That just confuses the issue and tries to sway people one way or the other based on sentiment — appealing to their emotions, rather than their reason.
Let me try to explain:
Pro-life: well, who wants to be pro-death?
Pro-choice: who wants to be anti-choice?
This makes for a conflict for people when they are trying to vote for candidates, and are really looking at this issue to try and see what is the most moral, correct thing to be voting for. And the “other side” takes horrible advantage of this naming inconsistency with one side saying that the other side is “pro-death” and the other side saying that their opposite is “trying to take away the rights of women” — Wow! I don’t want to be pro-death OR take away women’s rights, so how do I vote? Is there a position that I can take that I can live with?
Let’s take a look at the naming inconsistency for a moment. Pro-life. Okay, whose life? The fetus. So, they are “pro” the life of the fetus — under all circumstances. Let’s apply that to the other appellation. Pro-choice. So, they are “pro” the choice of the fetus. I don’t think so. The fetus never gets to choose if it will be carried to term or not. So, if we are being consistent in the question we are asking, the “other side” cannot be labeled “pro-choice” because this does not fit. And to say pro-death is a little harsh and tries to persuade to emotional shock. But is it accurate? Well, certainly in some instances, that’s exactly what’s going on. In an abortion, the woman is “pro” the death of the fetus. But — to confuse the issue — not all women who are “pro-choice” are “pro” the death of the fetus — some actually have children of their own whom they love very much and are very much in favor of other people also having children. I suppose a more accurate name would be “pro-situational-death,” since this group wants to retain the “right” to kill the fetus in certain situations, often citing the situation of a very young girl who finds herself pregnant after a rape (talk about emotional assault with that one!).
Let’s go the other way. Pro-choice. Choice of whom? The woman. Okay. So, the other side is “pro” the life of the woman? Boy, will they be happy to hear that! You can either have choice, or have life! You pick! And to a degree, this may not be an inaccurate thing. There are many women out there who do not realize the emotional impact an abortion will have on them and it does tear them apart from the inside, to know that they have killed their child. And, I know, some people may be getting upset the way I am saying “killing,” but when you are stopping a heart from beating — that’s killing. Seriously. It’s not “removing a clump of cells,” as if they were just skin cells in need of exfoliation. Skin cells will never become their own living, breathing, thinking person — no matter how well you nurture them.
There is the additional argument, “what if the mother’s life is in danger?” often made by proponents of the pro-choice cause. This is a real consideration. This really gets down to the crux of the matter. Are all lives equally important? Or are some lives more important than others? Even in the pro-life camp, if there is a situation where continuing the pregnancy would result in death of the mother, and/or death of both the mother and the child — they concede that there may be just cause for killing the child so as to preserve the life of the mother.
While I could probably go on at length for a while longer, I will end this post with an appeal: please look at all issues out there, including this most important issue of life, and vote — not according to your emotions — but according to your reason.