What does being “pro-life” actually mean? Clearly we all immediately focus on the issue of abortion and life beginning at conception. However, it seems that being “pro-life” should not be narrowly focused on only promoting the continuation of existing life, whether it’s in utero or an inmate on death row. Many pro-life supporters also argue the prevention of creating life through the use of contraceptives is also against their beliefs. What is rarely talked about, by even the staunchest of pro-life supporters, is the support for families who have difficulty in procreation. Millions, if not billions of dollars are spent by people and organizations fighting against the destruction of life through abortion et al, yet those same people and organizations are hard pressed to fund campaigns that actually promote the creation of life. It’s a juxtaposition that is rarely talked about when pro-life and pro-choice arguments come up. It seems that pro-life should, at its very core, promote the creation of life, not just on sustaining life that already exists.
Pro-choice supporters focus on a woman’s choice whether to prevent or continue a pregnancy. However the same cognitive dissonance exists in both pro-choice and pro-life movements. Neither movement gives much consideration to families that are forced to seek expensive medical assistance if they choose to try and become pregnant. Why don’t pro-life advocates do more to help create life where it would not otherwise exist without expensive IVF procedures? Why don’t pro-choice advocates support a woman’s choice to achieve pregnancy by helping them fund the costs associated with expensive IVF procedures?
This seems like an area that both groups should find a common understanding and work together to promote and assist in a family’s choice to seek reproductive help to make a baby of their own.