Pro-life has never made sense to me. When people ask me if I’m pro-life or pro-choice, of course I’d love to say pro-life! Who doesn’t like to live? By existing on this earth, we are granted a certain number of unalienable rights including the right to live.
But, I must pause and look back. They aren’t asking me if I would rather shoot myself than exist on this plane of reality. Rather, they’re asking me if I would like to have abortion legalized or not. In that case, I’m pro-choice, because I like being able to choose whether or not to raise a child.
It might seem inconsequential, but you have to ask: When you say you’re pro-life, are you factoring in the sheer amount of effort it takes to raise a child? Is it moral to birth a child into a household where it will not be loved, cared for, or even exposed to the mysterious ideal of a Romantic childhood?
I think almost all of the great philosophers would agree that, no, to grant a child the right to live, but not to grant a child the right to a quality of life is highly immoral. It’s not a life worth living at all.
It’s like curing a cancer patient and taking all their money or a letting a veteran come home to an empty plot of land. The child is homeless before it even had a chance to do anything with its life.
By saying that you’re pro-life, you’re saying that if it was me, I would give birth to the child, no matter what the circumstances were. I would bring it into this world at the risk of my life, my future reproductive ability, and my emotional stability. And when I’ve brought it into this world, I will love it unconditionally, forgive it, clothe, feed, educate, comfort it. I will pay for everything and let it live off of my livelihood despite the fact that I am swimming in debt. I will heal it and raise it to the best of my ability until the day it is ready to leave me and never come back until it is my turn to be taken care of.
If you stopped at “I would give birth to the child, no matter what the circumstances were….at the risk of my life…and my emotional stability”, you’re not pro-life.
You’ve transcended amorality and descended to immorality. You claim to be pro-life, but what you’ve done is made the assumption that the parents will stay together and love the child. That love unconditional comes unconditionally. That education is free and easy, that healthcare is available to all, and that you aren’t as indebted as you think you are.
Society is based on mathematics. That’s my personal belief. But human nature is not. We underestimate the depth of our ignorance and overestimate the depth of our knowledge. When human beings make assumptions that there will always be someone else, that there is more than there really is, that everyone thinks the same way, we come up with contradictions, controversies, and consequences.
Consequences like ignorance, hubris, vanity, discomfort, and war.
Do the consequences look dire yet? At least, if given the choice to abort, there will always be an afterlife, if you choose to believe in it. The unborn is pure and untainted, and it will go to Heaven to play with the cherubs and frolic with the angels.
God is nothing, if not fair. God is nothing, if not cruel.
I don’t believe in God. But I do believe in the balance of life.
We code our lives with binary. Either you are, or you aren’t, but in reality, everything is a little bit of a spectrum. It’s never simply a you are, or you aren’t. It’s a “to what extent”.