With the 2016 presidential election quickly approaching, people across the nation are discussing their political views. One, out of a plethora of views, that tends to be an extremely hot topic among voters is pro-life versus pro-choice.
People tend to identify, whole-heartedly with one side over the other. It’s typically with strong conviction that someone admits to their pro-life views, but it is with stronger certainty that I assert a third and more appropriate option.
The definition to being pro-life is generally accepted to be, at the moment of conception, the singular cell has a right to life, despite what the host may want. The host must carry the child to full term, and then make a decision about whether to raise the now born child or to give it up for adoption. This also tends to be where pro-life efforts stop. This conundrum never ceases to baffle me. How could one person call themselves pro-life, when they’re not fighting for a true life, just a birth?
To me, pro-life should be someone that advocates for the best possible life of a child. When budget cuts are made to education, or health care is denied to a child, where are the pro-life rallies? When parents can’t afford childcare and have to forgo a shift at their job, why are the pro-life identifiers not stepping up? Some may argue that by giving birth to the fetus, they are giving them a chance at life, but if a child is stuck in poverty and their school can’t afford to give free lunches when they’re starving, is that a chance at life at all? Or perhaps, a child with a life threatening disease isn’t covered under health care, so is it pro-life to give birth rights to the fetus, but stop caring about whether or not they die at age five?
In 2016, single-issue voters concerned with pro-life have a select amount of candidates to choose from. All of the candidates say they have pro-life views, but do they really? Besides being pro-life, these candidates also have another common stand. They all have a plan, in one way or another, to hurt the funding to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has been made out in the media to be an abortion-giving machine. This is, in fact, false. Only about 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood has offered in the past five years have been administering abortions. Planned Parenthood should be better known for administering breast exams and vaginal exams before anything else. Planned Parenthood is an advocate of women’s health, not abortions.
Is it only when a female becomes pregnant that prolife efforts should stop towards her life? Should pro-life activists stop asking for life saving checkups? The craziness and hypocrisy of the pro-life campaign is stunning. This is not my platform to ask those of you who identify with the pro-life agenda to stop believing in what you do. I only ask that you stop calling yourselves pro-life.
Until the day that you start fighting for the rights of all humans to a better life, you are pro-birth.
Grace Lehrian is a contributing writer for The Spectator.