The first problem I have with these people is that they call themselves �pro-choice.� This is not an accurate description of them. Yes, they offer a choice to women, but in doing so, they strip another human life of any rights whatsoever. The government of this country was put into place to protect the rights of U.S. citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but obviously the government doesn�t see these human lives as part of its citizenry. I�ve heard the arguments, but I can�t help but wonder why. Why don�t the unborn have rights as well?
One of the main reasons this issue is so perplexing are the contradictions in laws that all come from the same government. There are high penalties for a man if he were to beat a pregnant woman, causing her to lose her child (or whatever they want to call it.) But if it�s not a human life then it�s just a slimy mass inside the woman�s body. If the matter falls under destruction of property, why are the penalties so much lower for someone who slashes her tires or breaks her windows?
Another contradiction I found is in the definition of life. We�re all taught at a young age that living things eat, breath, and grow, and that�s exactly what�s happening at conception. Merriam-Webster�s dictionary defines life as, �the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.� If that is not a life in the womb at conception, then what is? Let�s make sure we have completely defined life. Merriam-Webster�s defines death as, �a permanent cessation of all vital functions.� So it�s definitely not a dead body.
In my attempts to understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions being made in this country, I thought maybe they just don�t believe it�s a human life within the womb. So how do they define human? Again according to Merriam-Webster�s, it means, �of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.� So where�s the confusion in that? It is of humans, one man and one woman. There�s nothing confusing about that.
Okay, so maybe there are some out there who believe that a woman should be allowed to choose whether or not she should have a child. But here�s a thought. If she didn�t want to have a child, maybe she shouldn�t have become pregnant! What a concept, right? I understand that for some it�s not a choice, as in the case of rape, and for some pregnancy could be fatal to themselves. But I am talking about the much larger percentage of women out there. The ones who decided to �do it,� and then decide they don�t want to deal with pregnancy. Maybe they realize that having a child is an enormous responsibility that few people are ever completely ready for, but the responsibility started when she became pregnant. Some might say they can�t afford a child, or they don�t know how to be a good parent. For them I have one word, adoption. Put the baby up for adoption. And just in case they don�t know what that means: according to Merriam-Webster�s dictionary adoption means �to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child.�
This whole article may seem rather elementary, but that is my point in writing all of it. There are children in third grade who could�ve said basically the same things I have said in this article. And yet our nations leaders are actually debating whether or not an unborn child is alive. Sometimes I wish I could ask how they could not call it human. It came from a man and woman. It comes out of a human. It grows into a man or woman. But it�s still up for debate. I can�t help but wonder if we brought a pro-choice senator�s own human existence up for debate, how he or she would choose to prove it. Maybe they eat, breath, and grow. Maybe they do have vital functions. Maybe they even have a law degree with honors, but now days those things appear to have lost their meaning.