What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition
it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn
child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I
see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up
to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk
about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life.
What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of
those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a
worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that
philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets
of some people I have conversed with recently.
I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child
you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the
individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection
of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.
Three areas I see in
conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of
acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of
government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations
of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of
life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end
theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated
laws restricting them.
Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?
The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse
me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance,
odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of
justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me.
If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it
should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be
protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an
asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer
holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If
the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be
against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not.
As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign
or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority
they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often
the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a
mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly
opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry
from a firm stance on that philosophy.
In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases
of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For
too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police
forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat
hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in
technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public
instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for
accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of
duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and
there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them
unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them
amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit
to take life from the Pro-Life believers.
If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other
person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted
authority you claim to have.
Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?
The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods
for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial
discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought
that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment
to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions.
Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and
institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and
see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the
comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support
the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless
we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state
as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there
is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the
case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other
instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can
you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought
in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being
important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose
this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means;
repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain
the protection of their life?
The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.
Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is
only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about
the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life?
Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the
action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being
Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if
a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a
not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does
it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that
life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another
person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and
the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary
removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing
new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and
rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting
the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather
than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over
remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.
I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written
above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does
not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us
fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of
protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go. To let the choice be made and to exit in the
time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be
Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace
the act of death for one to live a life worth living.
No comments:
Post a Comment