It’s been 51 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, but the issue of abortion remains at the forefront of our moral, scientific, and political discussions.
One of the most nuanced and difficult arguments from the pro-choice community is that of whether pro-lifers care for life post-birth and how they practically do so. A 2019 blog post from Planned Parenthood claimed that “People who oppose abortion often call themselves pro-life. However, the only life many of them are concerned with is the life of the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. They are much less concerned about the life of women who have unintended pregnancies or the welfare of children after they’re born. In fact, many people who call themselves ‘pro-life’ support capital punishment (AKA the death penalty) and oppose child welfare legislation.”
At first glance, it seems like an understandable argument: the pro-life community claims to care so much for life, but only emphasizes its beginning and not any other context. What about the elderly, those who seek medically-assisted suicide, or those who are victims of gun violence?
In the wake of the 40 instances of mass murder (in which more than four victims were killed) and more than 600 mass shootings (in which more than four victims were injured) that occurred in the United States in 2023, the argument that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they fight for the life of the unborn but don’t advocate for gun control is an especially visceral and emotional one.
But it’s also a fallacious distraction from the crux of the disagreement between the pro-life and pro-choice sides.
While both those on the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree that people who are alive today are deserving of dignity and protection, they fundamentally disagree on whether an unborn fetus is a human worthy of the same rights and protection.
Arguments that the pro-life community isn’t doing enough to foster a culture of life post-birth are types of “moving the goalpost” and “tu quoque” fallacies meant to distract from the issue at hand.
The fact of the matter is that the fight for life is a war, and securing the rights of the unborn is just the first battle in that war. Although the loss of human life at any age is a tragedy, there is a particular and urgent gravitas surrounding the murdering of the most vulnerable. In the first ten months of 2023, more than 870,000 abortions were performed in the United States. While the 40 instances of mass murder are heartbreaking and should spark preventative measures, these instances should not be equated with the millions of unborn children who have been killed in abortion clinics.
While pro-life advocates will readily admit that there is much work to be done on the front of protecting life in all stages, this extensive mission does not detract from the importance and focus of its starting point. The purpose of passing legislation to protect citizens from gun violence or provide welfare for children and the elderly is to protect and advance life. But if there is no right to life in the womb, there will be no chance for future protection.
The pro-life cause is not a single-issue one, even though it has largely focused on the rights of the unborn since 1973. It strives for the reinstitution of a society that values and protects the sanctity of human life in all stages, but understands that no society can properly view and protect life if that fundamental right is not secured for the most vulnerable.
As Ronald Reagan observed, “everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” So have the people who argue that because pro-lifers don’t support gun control, they don’t actually care about life. Life cannot be protected from violence if it doesn’t exist in the first place, and that is why stopping the horror of abortion is and should be the top priority for the pro-life community.
