Things That Divide Us-Pro-Choice/Life

This divisive topic pits life against death. What could be more inflammatory? I think this is the heart of the pro-life narrative. Most people would choose life if that is the choice. However, there are competing narratives that do use such stirring language. I would argue that the more nuanced narratives have less emotional appeal and are not heard the same way.

How do you pack the same punch into the argument that "they do it anyway". How can that be framed to compete with "life vs death". It seems to me that argument is a more understanding reason and deserves more thought. As long as families and society are intolerant of "unwanted pregnancies" that is exactly what will happen. The woman who has sperm and eggs uniting inside her will feel rejected and if the child is born, there is a chance it may feel the same.

A number of woman make the choice to abort the pregnancy. They are not killing a child, they are stopping a pregnancy.  So, in a sense, the narrative becomes "stopping a pregnancy or allowing it to continue".  At that point the argument becomes softer, less stark. In addition, many people feel that life begins when egg is fertilized. That, however is not the only thought on when life begins.

From an evolutionary point of view it is the purpose of human beings is to reproduce themselves. This is true for all types of life.  We are biologically capable of reproducing prolifically. Men have unlimited sperm and women unlimited eggs during their reproductive cycles.  If a sperm does not make it to an egg nothing is lost because there are so many sperm that one will surely make it eventually. If not right now, probably later.  Sometimes the egg and sperm create a zygote that does not make it. No worries it can happen later. My point is that there are numerous opportunities to create life and if that process is aborted nature/creator/God has provided for that possibility.

Does life begin with conception, or when the heart beats begin, or as many maintain, when the first breath is taken? This question has been debated for ages and there is no consensus.  Judaism Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religious and cultural groups have differing ideas about when life begins. The stance of the pro-life supporters, that life begins at conception, is a minority view. They have taken the science of life beyond the ideas of scientists, who do not all agree that the beginning is at conception.

Wherever life begins, it is access to a woman's body that is being debated. It would appear that those who abhor a "nanny" government have no compunction about controlling what a woman can or can not do with her body. The patriarchy inherent in societies around the world have believed for centuries that it is a male right to control their women.

Over time women have asserted their rights as individuals who not only control their own lives, but also their say in public debate and governance. This has been a difficult war in which the right to birth control and the final say over their pregnancy has been fought battle by battle. Pro-choice adherents believe they are the only ones who should have access to what happens to their bodies, while pro-life supporters believe the government has the right to decide what happens to a woman's body.

Male control over women has weakened and they can no longer dictate what happens to a woman. It is my belief that most women desire a rational dialogue with their partners about ending a pregnancy, but believe the final choice is theirs to make.

Certainly it is noble and idealistic to wish that all pregnancies be carried to to birth. That should be the goal not a dictum. I think many humans agree that abortion should not be used as birth control. However, the most important ingredient to living a fulfilling life is love. Every child should be loved, valued, and nourished before they are conceived. That is how we end unwanted pregnancies.