Pro-life more cons than pros?

The biggest and leading problem with the notion of pro-life is that they have taken a very complicated issue, and reduced it down into a simplistic narrative based on their own feelings without also looking at the facts and feelings of the individuals who have been put in these situations.

Quite frankly, we cannot and should not outlaw abortion. Pregnancy is an extremely complex process that could lead to numerous complications, such as a fertilized egg not properly connecting to the uterus. This could lead to the fertilized egg attaching itself to another internal organ within the body resulting in it leaching off of said organ that was not prepared to support such a process. This inevitably would lead to either extreme injury or death of the mother.

The fertilized egg itself would not receive the needed amount of nutrients from the body with it resulting in it not being able to fully develop. So, the only solution for this unfortunate situation would be abortion to try and save the mother. Another reason why abortion should not be outlawed is that childbirth itself is also a complex and sometimes dangerous process. It is unfortunate, but it is also possible doctors will need to choose to either save the mother’s life or the child’s life.

You may find that so far we have been discussing mostly extreme scenarios, but these are the scenarios we need to focus on if we are just going to outlaw a procedure such as abortion, and since we are discussing extreme scenarios, we should bring up the most extreme scenario — rape. Quite simply, if an individual was raped, they did not consent to have a child, therefore they should not be required anyway whatsoever to bring that child to term and give birth to it.

They have already suffered through a traumatic event, but by prohibiting them from getting an abortion, you are forcing them to go through another traumatic event that they did not consent to or even want to occur. On top of all of that, we are forcing them to have a permanent reminder of both traumatic events. Even if they put the child up for adoption afterwards, that is still an unfathomable amount of forced trauma to live with after. Being in that position where you are required to carry that baby to term is an unquestionable thing to ask of someone if they do not want that.

There are also questions about what happens to the child after birth. Sure, adoption is always pointed to, but that’s not a fail-safe or a good way to look at this situation either. Those who want to put their child for adoption for several credible reasons are encouraged to do so, but if someone has decided to have an abortion, why is it a fight to not allow it? A discussion could happen and maybe they change their mind, but if they don’t, it’s their body, not yours.

Rarely have we heard pro-life groups putting resources towards childcare for orphans or abandoned children. There are tons of people who cannot afford children and they’ve been put in a position where there are no resources available. You may not know someone’s reason for getting an abortion, and that’s their business. If there were programs in place and funding, that could certainly help in these situations where abortions are being discussed. Plus, being pregnant brings plenty of burdens — physical and financial. Even if we make abortion illegal, humans will still find a way to have the procedure done — that just makes things way less safe for everyone because experienced doctors would not be used in that scenario.

If these groups truly care about the babies past the fetus stage, they should be putting their money towards support systems and social programs which support new or single mothers. Investing in various supports which help families, advocating for adoption, and/or funding adoption centres instead of continuously putting funds and efforts into protests which do not benefit any of the expecting mothers or newly born children, will have more palpable impacts on the welfare of children.

Fundamentally, pro-life organizations are not bad at all, it’s just that their efforts could be better served by providing funding for tangible social support resources instead of trying to remove fundamental healthcare rights.