Importance of Life

     Before stating any opinions on this topic at all, it should be understood that I'm not going to talk about the importance of life as a two-sided argument of pro-life verses pro-choice. In a common debate, those are typically the two sides, but it's not really that simple. The typical Republican would be considered pro-life, being that they tend to be against abortion in at least most forms. However, most Republicans are also for the death penalty. And by their own standards, shouldn't life being considered from conception until natural death? Pro-life, by its definition, would mean being for all life. So to take that stance would mean being against not only abortion, but also against war, nuclear weapons, and the death penalty. For an easy example, take a look at the Republican Mitt Romney. He did say no to abortion, but he also certainly did say yes to war. So the title pro-life would not be accurate, but rather he (and most Republicans) would be simply anti-abortion.

     Of course, it would unfair to deny any form of near-hypocrisy (I use this term very lightly) in the democratic party, being that they can argue with abortion, but are usually against killing criminals via the death penalty. The difference, however, is in the wording of "pro-choice." Meaning that, in regards to abortion, you aren't necessarily for it, but don't believe in taking the option away from people.

     But of course, the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely terms. And words don't matter, it's the opinions and actions. For this reason, I'm not going to come right out and say I'm on either side.

     Getting definitions out of the way, we can break the argument down to a series of varying beliefs, because, again, that's all that's relevant in the end.

     War: there aren't too many people that genuinely like war. Some, sure, but most people tend not to start wars out of boredom. There's some reason for them. Not always good. The two solutions are typically to fight back until peace can be made, or give up and be conquered or killed. Fighting probably isn't the best option to begin with. But talking it out and listening to each other often isn't practical and doesn't work out too well either. So do I like war and killing and violence and think it can solve things? No. Nor does the end of a war ever equal the end of a struggle. But sometimes wars happen, and they aren't ideal, but can be effective, or the only option can be fighting back. It's not about liking it, it's about understanding it and what the goal ultimately is, and then having a plan to achieve that goal. And that I can understand. World peace isn't happening any time soon. I've accepted this. Moving on.

     Death Penalty: contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is actually a lot more expensive then life imprisonment, and more complicated due to the amount of trials involved. Because death is permanent, so that's not something you should get wrong. However, people have been killed and then later found innocent. And then what?

     Some say if the crime is horrid enough, the punishment should fit it. If someone kills 50 people, they also deserve to be killed. This is an ancient way of thinking of justice. I disagree. Perhaps I assume people can always be better than they are; that they can change. For the same reason, I don't necessarily believe anyone should be put in jail for a hundred years, with no chance of getting out do to significant change or successful counseling. No, not everyone will get better, and if they can't then they shouldn't be freely roaming the streets. But, if it's been 40 years and they actually have improved significantly, why not give them a chance to live a free life, provided they're still willing to leave prison after all that time and it's a decision approved by all their doctors or therapists or officers watching them.

     With the death penalty, there is no chance for that. There's no going back. It's justice without a chance or hope for someone found guilty and takes away their entire right to life.

     Yes, people can be terrible. But then it becomes hypocritical for someone to judge and decide they deserve to die. So give them a lifetime of being confined and monitored to make sure they can't do anything terrible again. If they can't change, they stay there forever and that's it. But give them an opportunity. Deciding they must be killed is neither practical nor just.

     Abortion: this is not an issue of yes or no to abortion, but rather if it should be allowed or not. This cannot be a circumstantial thing. You can't say it's only allowed in cases of rape, or within the first month, or if the baby could not survive, or if the mother's life is at risk. These things are impossible to judge or monitor. How are you going to pinpoint exactly when a child was conceived or if there is any chance they could survive or not? And we already have a big enough debate over what just rape even is. How do you only allow it for certain people with absolute proof, and then make a 15 year old who couldn't prove they were raped and cannot support a child or afford to carry it, carry it to full term. There's too many different circumstances, and you can't just pick certain ones. You allow it or you don't. And because there are so many times when this is necessary, we have to allow it, or we're potentially holding back people from what they could do without a child. You can't stress the worth of all people, and then take away the right's and dignity of women. 

     Many would say that adoption is always the best option. And it could be, but only with high adoption rates and knowing that the child actually gets a good home, which we don't. It could be just as bad as the child's birth parents if they couldn't financially or emotionally be in a place to care for another life. Furthermore, carrying a baby to full term could put horrible stress on the mother. It could be a constant reminder if she was attacked, or it could force a bond with someone she knew she could never keep, or just cause terrible depression. Even if her life wasn't physically in danger, mental danger can be just as bad, and that's not something any doctor could easily gauge.

     In any case, the world is not under populated and we are not in dire need of any child that could possible ever live, no matter the cost. I'm not going to say kill off all babies because they aren't doing anything but weighing us down. But if you have to choose between 10 cells who could not ever survive or a mother who could have to go through the hardest time of her life if she had to carry a child, are they really equal?

     Some would say yes. It's an opinion, fine. And maybe this is just me trying to "live in the now," but it might be better to worry about those currently alive. Like how it's impossible to just think the future will be great, and then do nothing at all to make that happen. What's important right now is what's happening right now.

     You could say just limit abortion to a certain term. The problem there is determining when someone has met their cut off date. See: the Arizona law that makes a girl pregnant weeks before she's pregnant, to close the gap and make it harder to get legal abortions. If a baby is carried to full (or nearly full) term, however, and could at that point survive just fine, at that point I would probably recommend putting it up for adoption. And never force a mother to keep it. But then, never force them to do anything for that matter.

     And while I'm on this topic: should Church-run hospitals be forced to give abortions? If it's strictly run by the Church, no. Simple as that. Same as the principle that churches should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings. If we're separating Church and state and have religious freedom, let them do what they want. The choice should be theirs whether they say yes or no. But, this is religious freedom. Just as a church shouldn't have to perform an abortion, the Church should say no to all abortions because that is their belief, even if not everyone else's.

     In summary: everything is circumstantial. The number of circumstances are way too plentiful to say yes or no either way. And it's not fair to try. Deciding either way isn't an easy task and it's nearly impossible to try to put yourself in that situation. The woman would be going through a lot, they do not need someone limiting their options or judging them or constantly monitoring their progress and telling them how much time they have to make a decision. It's a hard enough thing to begin with, and you can't decide for them, so don't try to.

For this topic more than any, I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me. As always, you're allowed. This is me voicing my opinions, you're free to voice yours. It's only fair. However, just know that my mind's set. This is a topic where I'm sure many would love to change it. By all means, comment away if you want, but just know that, well, this is it and I'm not trying to start a debate in the comments. But, again, I can't stop you from speaking your mind, if you want to, so go ahead.