It’s Plausible One Can Be Pro-Choice And Morally Pro-Life At The Same Time

It’s Plausible One Can Be Pro-Choice And Morally Pro-Life At The Same Time

The debate about abortion is one of the most widespread across the U.S., and people are very tilted towards one of the two sides: pro-choice or pro-life. However, they don’t have to be.
Most people think that abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue, and no one can legislate our body autonomy. On the other side, however, are the pro-lifers, who think that a fetus is a human individual and that women have no right to take away that life.

And then there are the people who are in the middle. People who believe that life actually begins at conception, but that abortion is not something we would choose, but still vote for abortion to be legal.

Some people think that it’s possible to be morally anti-abortion, but politically pro-choice, and not feel any conflict about it. This is their reasoning:

The gray area to be legislated is too large. The thing is, everyone has a different opinion on when exactly life begins, and it should be considered an individual question.
According to Arthur Caplan, an award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, many scientists would say that they don’t know when life actually begins, because there are a series of landmark moments. Conception, development of the spine, development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.

Let’s say, however, for the sake of the argument that the human’s life begins at conception. Even then, there are too many other issues that are problematic to ban, and no person should make black-and-white decisions over it.

One of the many reasons of why abortion should not be banned is that there are many families that are deeply harmed by the restrictive abortion laws, and there are many families that had to make the choice of abortion because their baby’s life would have been short and pain-filled.

There are many stories where abortion laws have done real harm to the mothers and babies, and if we are not the ones who should judge, then the government shouldn’t either.

Most pro-lifer views are based on religion and religious beliefs only, and religion should not be the basis for the laws of any country. Also, politicians should not dig their noses into our very personal medical choices, and we don’t understand why people think that the government should be involved in these very personal medical decisions.

Abortion is a medical decision after all, and trying to make a woman have a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive is most definitely something that the government should do.
Every religion actually teaches us that we should love and support women (and people) who are facing difficult choices, so why not do that?

The best way to avoid abortion is by preventing conceiving in the first place, and it is actually the pro-choice platforms that provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.
The abortion rates are at their lowest in 40 years in the U.S., and, as you know, abortion has been legal during that time, so it means that keeping abortion legal and available has NOT resulted in an increase in abortion rates.

Switzerland, for example, has the lowest abortion rate on the planet, and that percentage started to drop ever since it became legally unrestricted in 2002.

The laws in one country should only be based on reality and on the best data it’s people have available. So, since birth control is available and affordable, it is the most proven method of reducing abortion rates.

 
Comments
 
Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply