Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman
By Brittany G.
The last four years have shown that the feminist movement is riddled with hypocrisy. It “fights” for equality and freedom, but only if you make the “right” choice and vote blue. Unfortunately, when it comes to life, conservative women cannot stand idly by. In the case of abortion, we cannot allow the Left to co-opt the “right-to-choose” argument into some narrative that insists it empowers women. With the rise in popularity of the feminist movement and the praising of Roe v. Wade, the narrative of abortion is becoming normalized and celebrated by a portion of the Left under the guise of “women’s empowerment.” While liberal women project that my desire to protect the innocent life growing inside a woman is “not being pro-life, but pro-controlling women,” they fail to see that there are certain situations in life where we do not get to choose if the cost is too grave. Conveniently, the Left’s narrative of empowering women seems to exclude the little women growing inside the womb. It’s true that as conservatives, we fundamentally believe in small government. However, this is not a matter of the government telling you what you can or cannot do with your body— it is about preserving a fundamental facet of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Being pro-life is not about limiting women; it’s about protecting those who don’t have a voice: the unborn.
Perhaps it is due to my Catholic upbringing, which taught me the value of life, compassion, empathy, and morality, but I cannot morally support, let alone glorify abortion. Extenuating circumstances such as rape and medical necessity are rare and completely understandable. However, for a young, financially stable woman to claim that an abortion is her right or even “her birth control” is sickening. An abortion procedure is not just a solution to a problem or a magic procedure where you’re pregnant one day and not pregnant the next. Abortion is where a doctor dismembers a child’s body inside the woman and rips the child out piece by piece if far enough along. Only 1% of abortions result from rape, a tiny fraction that the Left weaponizes to justify that abortion needs to be readily available. For all the declarations that planned parenthood is necessary due to free birth control and contraceptives, why is abortion being used as a backup plan? My parents taught me to take responsibility for my actions, regardless of the personal embarrassment or perceived gravity. Keeping a child, especially at a young age, is a tough and brave decision, and I deeply respect the millions of women, old and young, who kept their babies. So when I argue that a woman who falls pregnant due to having unprotected sex and not taking the necessary precautions should go through with the pregnancy, I am not anti-women. I am concerned with that future life growing inside of the woman. The Declaration of Independence explicitly states the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all people, so why is that unborn child not allowed the right to life through birth? If all of the options to prevent pregnancy, such as sex education, contraceptives, birth control, and even Plan B, are provided for free at planned parenthood (courtesy of taxpayer funding), there should be no need for an abortion backup plan. Instead of celebrating and promoting abortions, we should be promoting funding for adoption services, caregivers, young mothers, and orphanages. I would much rather my tax dollars go to these institutions and programs rather than abortion because they [abortion alternatives] are ethical means of ensuring that no child is left alone.
A piece of legislation drafted to slow abortions, the Heart Beat bill, protects an unborn child once a doctor detects a heartbeat. This bill is critical for protecting unborn children and should be in place in all 50 states, though it is currently only present in a few states, such as Alabama and Ohio. It is one of the only pieces of legislation that fights Roe v. Wade and the child. The unborn are our most vulnerable population, yet there are few, if any, resources that protect them.
Despite not being allowed to vote, a 12-year-old is entitled to the same protections as an 18-year-old under the Constitution. As is a baby once born. So why then is an unborn baby not given the same rights? Our society is science obsessed, especially with the human impact on environmental systems, yet ignores humanity’s science. The Left refuses to acknowledge an unborn child’s science and biology, bastardizing it as a “clump of cells.” A fetus is a growing human with growing organs and a growing brain. It is not a potential human life; it is a human life with potential. Disagreements surrounding when life begins will likely always exist. I think we should air on the side of caution and choose life
Abortion is an issue regarding humanity, not gender, and therefore should not exclude men. When a man argues against abortion, women immediately start claiming, “men are trying to control a woman’s body.” Men are 50% responsible for the child’s conception; therefore, they should be allowed in the discussion. A Supreme Court of seven men decided Roe v. Wade— so much for the Left’s hysteria about men trying to control a woman’s body making abortion illegal. In the same vein, however, I believe that men should also bear half of the responsibility (not just financially) of raising the child. Stronger paternity laws and a general societal shift in the distribution of the burden of raising a child could significantly reduce the toll on women. Abortion is often seen as the simplest way to alleviate the financial, emotional, and societal pressures of having a child. Holding men accountable for their actions (unless you’re Mary, you’re not getting pregnant without one) could make choosing life a more approachable and less stressful decision for young women.
Whether you are for or against abortion, funding of said abortion is a matter of contention. Those who do not believe in abortion should not be required, via taxes, to fund such procedures. It frustrates me enough that ending life is allowed— my tax dollars should not aid in what I view as murder. Despite popular belief, overturning Roe v. Wade would not mean the automatic re-criminalization of abortion but a decreased frequency. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would then go to the states— where the issue should have always been— it would not make abortion unilaterally illegal. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench; in this case, the bench did not fulfill its duty. But, regardless of whether or not the case is ever overturned, I stand by the notion that I should not be paying for it, nor should any other woman or man against abortion.
Allowing abortions to take place leaves too much room for discrimination against children. Many abortions include children who are detected to be born with a disability, whether it is as severe as down syndrome or milder such as autism. From 1998-2011, 67% of babies diagnosed with prenatal down syndrome were aborted. Abortions of disabled children are objectively and lethally discriminatory and, thus, unethical. The abortion of a future autistic child is against Article 2 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. A baby, no matter its preexisting condition, is entitled to its God-given right to life. Society has never needed this form of discrimination; there are many programs tailored to children with disabilities to enhance their future possibilities of living a happy and productive life. My younger cousin has down syndrome, something her parents knew before her birth. My uncle and aunt made a conscious effort to make life as normal for my cousin as possible, with various programs, playgroups, and schools. While knowing whether or not a child will be born with a disability can help parents properly prepare, this knowledge, in turn, has been manipulated into an excuse to abort a child. Every life has intrinsic value— we cannot quantify the value of one’s life, and giving us this choice allows us to play God in a frightening way. Abortion should not be contingent on convenience; it is about the child’s ability to be born and capitalize on their futures. Even if it is not the future many parents had in mind for their child, a disability is never a child’s fault, nor is it a reason for their murder.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, it is considered a double homicide. Then why, again, is that unborn child not considered a baby when it comes to abortion? In the eyes of the law, that child is living in the case of murder. When an abortion is committed, the fetus ceases to exist, just as in the case of murdering a pregnant woman. These claims that abortion is not murder contradict many judicial cases involving the murder of pregnant women. The Unborn Victims of Violence, a United States Law, proposed by former President George W. Bush, claims that if a pregnant woman is harmed or killed, and so is the fetus, it is protected under the law, in effect giving legal status to the unborn child. A perfect example of this is the notorious Laci Peterson murder case. She and her unborn child were murder victims, and her husband, Scott, was charged and convicted of a double homicide.
Keep in mind— not all anti-abortion advocates have religious backgrounds, and though the movement has considerable religious backing, it is an a-religious cause. Pro-life is not a matter of gender or religion but one of ethics. There is a severe misunderstanding of the rights we have— this should not be one of them. While it may be a woman’s body, there is also the second body growing inside of her. Pro-life is not anti-women; it is in support of all women— both living and unborn. As conservatives, we are in favor of limited government in most aspects of our lives— second amendment rights, economic and market freedom— but we draw the line at abortion because this is about human life. Abortion is not about limiting women or infringing on their rights; it’s about protecting the rights of our most vulnerable and silenced: the unborn.
Photo via Pinterest
