The two sides of the abortion debate are currently labeled pro-life and pro-choice. These labels are wrong in the deepest sense and the pro-choice group needs to get this point across to the public in order to reframe the debate more accurately and truthfully and level the rhetorical playing field.
The truth is, the "pro-life" group does not love human life at all! How many times have you heard of a christian murdering an abortion doctor? How many times have you heard of an abortion rights activist murdering a christian (I've never heard of an abortion rights activist murdering anyone)? The "pro-life" group hates human life. They hate human life because, according to religious dogma, every human is filled with original sin from the moment they are born. Their position on abortion has nothing to do with love and respect for human life or the principle that humans have a right to life. Their position has nothing to do with common sense or logic. Anti-abortion is a purely religious position, not a moral, ethical or logical position.
Anti-abortion should not be called pro-life, it should be called religious anti-abortion. Allowing the anti-abortion movement to call themselves pro-life is to allow them to surreptitiously hijack the innate human tendency to value and love human life. It's a travesty to let the religious anti-abortion group call themselves pro-life. And it's a travesty for the pro-choice movement to fail to recognize this truth and allow this abject mischaracterization to continue.
Why is religion anti-abortion? Because religion thrives on human misery. That is why pope paul 6 in 1968 said it's okay to use the rythm method to try and avoid pregnancy but the pill is infallibly wrong. The rythm method increases fear, uncertainty, doubt, and guilt. Imagine a poor couple unable to afford more children rolling the dice with a crucifix on the bedroom wall staring down at them as if chanting in depressing gregorian mumbo jumbo, "sex is for procreation, not for pleasure!" Pope paul 6 was a sadistic celibate to inflict this kind of pain and guilt on the poor souls following him blindly.
Religion thrives when humans are miserable, unhappy, ignorant slaves to biology and nature. The christian religion was at its peak during the dark ages when humans were slaves to disease, starvation and overcrowding. The shining beacon of reason arising in the Renaissance scared religion like a bright white light on cockroaches.
The truth is, humans DO have a right to life. All humans have a right to life. But no one has a right to life at the expense of someone else. This is why slavery is wrong and evil. If you are dying and need just one drop of special blood to live and I'm the only person on earth with the correct blood, I DO NOT have to give it to you! People would be justified to ridicule me since the effort on my part would be so minimal to save your life but no one, not the government or anyone else, has the right to put me in jail or say that I committed a crime. I'm not a slave and I don't have to give up even an ounce of the right to my own life.
So, even if the anti-abortion group wants to consider a clump of cells as a person, the clump of cells still would not have a right to life at the expense of the mother! The anti-abortion movement fails on two counts: 1) a clump of cells is not a human; 2) a clump of cells does not have a right to life at the expense of the mother.
The pro-choice group understands the true essence and meaning of "right-to-life" is valuing and respecting a life that actually exists now over a clump of cells that might become a life someday.
Here is a quote from the greatest philosopher of all time, Ayn Rand
Excerpt from "Of Living Death" The Objectivist, October 1968:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
"Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
Labels: abortion, antiabortion, pro-choice, pro-life