Let’s start off first with the fact that there’s a sliding scale of what’s what here. This has become an ideology, and with that comes a sliding scale.
On one side you have the “Pro-Choice” crowd who mostly believe that it’s the woman’s choice in the matter. The other side you have the “Pro-Life” crowd, who generally believe that one must have the child. While I’m speaking I’m going to take a look at both sides, and the sliding scale between the two. I’m going to assess both sides and then weigh in with my own frank opinion.
The first flaw I find with the “pro-life” crowd is the name. The name “pro-life” by word psychology implies that the opposing side is “pro-death”, and that’s not necessarily true, yet a lot of times that’s precisely how they argue against it. I recommend changing the name; pro-responsibility, or pro-parenthood, sounds more accurate. I’ve heard “pro-fetus” before, but as a pejorative… still more accurate than “pro-life”. Interestingly, those who are staunchly pro-life tend to also be the pro-capital punishment (death sentence) crowd, which is, largely not congruent with the essence of the term, “pro-life”.
The pro-life crowd tends to use a lot of argument by emotion, which is something I’m usually not a fan of. This includes loaded word selection such as “murder”, which is a legal term that is used to elicit an emotional response. All killing is not equal to murder. I do however agree with the general premise of simply not having abortions, and that’s what I rather exercise. The politicians who court this crowd? It can get quite colorful, to say the least. I also have a serious problem with some of the random out-of-nowhere things that pro-life politicians say. Anti-intellectualism doesn’t help a debate.
The pro-lifers tend to be more religious, and frequently cite religion as a form of self-governance reference. I personally find no fault in that. However, everyone sins, and approaching one sin with a particular vigor and not another constitutes… an irregularity of faith practice.
The pro-life team tends to find themselves accused of not giving a damn about the child after being born. This is because of the tertiary policies that their politicians generally support typically seems to be incongruent with supporting children or supporting life as a whole. Overall, despite their flaws the pro-life crowd is a team with a noble cause. I prefer to not have abortions, thus responsible to not have children until I’m ready (as a man, yes I think this way). Of course being well intentioned has its flaws if you are bombing abortion clinics, but the main premise objectively speaking, is noble.
First thing I notice is that I find no parallel; pro-choice is an accurate name, and it remains inclusive for moderates like me who while operating in life as pro-life, I am pro-choice by way of technicality; in choosing to NOT have kids until I explicitly choose to, I’m pro-choice. I also notice that there’s very little animosity towards to opposing team; to be pro-choice means you are FOR a “choice” in either direction, and it seems that their beef tends to be more or so about what they do and what they say. Pro-choice, outside of what’s said or what’s done, are always on defense and the other is always on the attack. Pro-choice are sometimes called the sluts, and group of irresponsibility; and while that’s not fair for the whole, SOME, are.
Being that they are on the defense more than not, the pro-choicers are the ones who build the most arguments based on reason. They make a lot of points, and raise a lot of questions. The concept of “personhood” versus “beginning of life”? What if one were impregnated by rape? What if childbirth would KILL the mother? If an abortion is supposed to be “murder”, then what’s a miscarriage? Involuntary manslaughter? That’s all them; they bring up extenuating circumstances to practically exist as an ideological platform.
One thing that blows is the fact that many anti-religious reside here (opposed to being, “irreligious”). With the good premise of logic and reason, they tend to be assholes by dismissing religion entirely. This tends to pivot the whole debate into a debate about religion (against religion), and I find serious fault with that. This subgroup of pro-choicers seemingly just want to piss you off, depending on how religious you are and how accessible your buttons are. It’s probably the most abundant problem I can find with the pro-life group — internet message board atheists (in this debate) are assholes. There are better ways to defend pro-choice, and there’s a distinction between being irreligious, and ANTI-religious. But… that’s another article (I promise).
Now one huge issue I take with the pro-choice crowd is the notion that abortion slides into birth control. If you haven’t guessed it yet, I do not support the notion, or function of, abortion as a form of birth control. It is not a moot point that, the topic of “birth control” actually was created by the opposing team; with the questions that pro-choice have made, pro-life answered with ideas that attack various forms of (ordinary, non-abortion) birth control. So, due to the pro-lifers denying forms of valid birth control, the pro-choicers find more strength in reason.
The ugly side? Those who support third trimester abortions. In fact, there are pro-choicers who would support fourth trimester abortions. Yeah, that happened. Fourth, trimester? You fail biology forever.
Me? While I consider abortion (especially treated like a form birth control) a wrong (morally) idea, I remain pro-choice being that I simply don’t think it’s good to criminalize bad ideas. Bad ideas… let’s face it; if women didn’t make bad decisions, half of you men wouldn’t ever get laid. Yeah, I said it. And if one were to be a piss and shit poor parent, I rather them not be one at all, by any means necessary. Really, with all morals and religious faith firmly placed, I don’t see myself forcing my beliefs and morals on others, through legislation or otherwise. I always preferred one to be actually seeking; they ask me for advice on the matter. When they do, then I answer. I don’t like to talk to brick walls, or people who obfuscate what I say or force my beliefs on others. I just don’t see myself supporting legislation criminalizing bad ideas. If killing an unborn child is heavy, then that woman (and to a lesser extent, the man) will have to carry that burden. I don’t like the idea of creating laws for such personal shameful acts, or combining religion with law. Freedom of religion comes with separation of Church and State.
The thing about the middle is that you piss of both sides… and that’s a lot of people. And that’s my take on the abortion debate. What’s yours? If anything, I don’t see it making any sense to compare an embryo to an air-breathing, walking, crawling human being. I bet you, that a pro-life person who equates the two wouldn’t equate a full grown chicken with chicken eggs, especially if you replace their chicken sandwich with an egg sandwich, explaining by their logic, they are the same thing. The response is usually hilarious.