I recently stumbled across an article whose title intrigued me: "Just because I'm Pro-Life Doesn't Mean I'm Anti-Women's Rights, You Can Be Both." My idea of pro-life has always been something rather simple—the denial of a woman's right to choose. While pro-choice isn't exactly anti-life, pro-life is the exact same as anti-choice.
Wanting someone to have a fresh opinion on this whole abortion debate, I clicked the article. I can get behind the introduction; the author is definitely for equality with most aspects of a woman's life. When I got to the third paragraph though, I was disappointed. Just like a lot of pro-life people, she compared abortion to murdering a child.
To make things even worse in my mind, she cited that the "baby" has separate DNA from conception. This is partially true. Sure, the sex cells that meet together have the same DNA that the child will have if it makes it to birth, but that isn't a baby yet. It's a zygote. It's something the mother may not even be aware of yet, and it's something that could be completely unwanted.
It could also be completed wanted, planned and loved, but end up threatening the mother's life. I'll talk about the fun grey area of unwanted but necessary abortions after I talk about the next citation.
She leaves a link for us to follow if we want more information about life starting at conception, but guess when the most recent study was done—1997! The last study that claimed life began at conception was over two decades ago. As a scientific mind, I want something that's less than a decade old. In fact, that's what I was taught to look for.
The more recent, the better.
But that isn't the point of this article. I'm not writing about this person to bash her out-of-date sources; I'm writing to say that you can't be pro-life and pro-women's choice.
Remember what I mentioned a few paragraphs ago? How a zygote could be completely wanted and loved, but end up putting the mother's life at risk? Which is more important: the mother or the not-yet-born-may-still-die-child? Not every woman that seeks an abortion wants to "kill her child."
Sure, she covers her ass by mentioning a "normal pregnancy" very fleetingly, but people calling women baby-killers outside of Planned Parenthood aren't going to know who is there out of choice and who is there out of need.
Here's some food for thought: What if a rape victim has a perfectly normal pregnancy that could be carried to term?
Another scenario: What if the parent(s) wouldn't have the ability or even want to care for an unwanted child?
I'm not anti-life, and I don't support killing babies.
However, if I had a friend who needed an abortion because she was raped? If she had no ability to care for herself, let alone a child? If she made a big mistake and couldn't stand the life that she and her child would have to lead? I wouldn't call her a murderer. I wouldn't tell her she killed her child out of her own selfishness.
I would be there to comfort her, to console her, to make sure she knew the world didn't hate her, just like I would hope someone would do for me if I was in that position.
If your stance is that a woman should be forced to carry a child she doesn't want, then your stance is anti-women's rights.