Just as there will always be people who disagree over the historical importance of the BLT sandwich, there will always be a war between those who believe human life, in its most precious and innocent form, is expendable for the sake of self-convenience and those who believe that if there is one thing society has an obligation to defend, it is the life of the unborn.
People opposed to abortion should not refer to the other side as “pro-choice” or “anti-life.” The first plays into the hand of the opposition and the second is propagandistic (or at least it sounds that way). Likewise, we should never refer to ourselves as “pro-life” (again, it sounds propagandistic) or “anti-choice” (because we actually support choice in more areas than liberals do, just not when it comes to the choice of committing acts of barbarism against future generations before they even take their first breath).
Let’s keep it simple: We are anti-abortion. The matter being fought is abortion, not “choice” and not “life” in general, but abortion. Are “pro-lifers” not also usually supportive of the death penalty? Right, so we’re anti-abortion, and we should not be ashamed of that label.
Liberals think they’ve found a clever workaround to those who call themselves “pro-life.” If we were truly pro-life, they say, then we would support mandatory organ donation to save lives.
“We don’t harvest organs to save lives,” one liberal told me, “even from the dying or already dead, nor do we forcibly take blood, even though both these actions are less taxing on a body than pregnancy and would have incredible life-saving impact. The use of our bodies is voluntary, even when lives are involved. It is the same right that a woman has to her body.”
But this argument overlooks the fact that whatever condition a person finds himself in in which he needs a kidney, the prospective kidney donor did not put that person in that condition. On the other hand, it was a pregnant woman’s actions that did give life to the baby inside of her.
Now, if a person takes a baseball bat to someone’s kidneys and one of them gets damaged and needs replacement, the attacker will be sued and made to pay for the kidney-replacement surgery. It was his actions that caused the other person the damage, so in that case it makes sense to make him pay for it. Currently we don’t have laws to force the attacker to donate his own kidney, but if his kidney is compatible with his victim’s body, why shouldn’t we? (It’d certainly help discourage violence against others). But it was the actions of the pregnant woman herself that caused someone else to be alive, so it is she who must live through the natural consequences—pregnancy—of those actions.
Then the argument of rape comes into play, but that’s another debate altogether.