Today, a blog published by Alternet.org entitled “Pro Life, Pro War, Pro Death Penalty—What’s Wrong With This Picture?” caught my attention. More specifically, it eloquently addressed many ideological flaws I have been attempting to rationalize through my acquired experiences as a somewhat prominent pro-choice advocate on a college campus. The author of this piece, though not identified beyond the screen name of “The Christian Humanist,” expresses in written word much of the confusion that has been thrust upon me throughout my dealings with issues of reproductive healthcare and access. While I don’t wish to intricately explore the arguments of each side, I do want to share a passage from the blog that caught my attention:
“I find it curious that those who say they are pro life are not consistently in favor of life on other issues where positions in favor of life seem relevant. Being pro life implies a larger agenda than just being anti-abortion. If they were really pro life wouldn’t they oppose the death penalty [because the innocent are condemned more often than most realize], oppose war [because the innocent are often collateral damage in military conflicts], oppose manufacturers who poison our environment, contaminate our air and water, and sell defective products, etc. [because this affects the quality of life]? However, most who say they are pro life are conservative Republicans who support war and the death penalty and oppose environmental policies that limit what businesses can do or that impose costs on them, so it is difficult to see what they mean when they say they support a pro life agenda. I think it is safe to say that they misuse the pro life label—they are not pro life, they are anti-abortion.”
The rest of the blog is certainly worth examining, as is the contributing website http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx and associated website http://www.religioustolerance.org/.
Much could be said on this topic, but for now, I leave it at that.
two weddings and some feminism
7 years ago