From what I understand of the pro-choice movement, the driving belief is that women should be allowed to decide whether they will have a baby and when. This is why the movement has adopted the term choice.
A woman should be allowed to decide whether she will have a baby and when.
Pro-choice is a good opposite to pro-life; the pro-death movement, for instance, would be hard to get behind. Pro-life has a positive connotation, a positive sound. It would be hard to not be for life, but if its opposite is choice (not death) than that's something else altogether. Undue restraints and the withholding of rights become the issues at hand, not life or death.
Neither restraints nor withheld rights are the issues at hand. Choice, in the way that some women are demanding it, is not biologically possible. There are many reasons, some passionate and understandable, why women (and men) believe that a woman should have the ability to decide whether and when to be a mother, but the fact of the matter is, we do not have this ability.
Basic Science: How is a human formed?
I've been working on a book recently for my children to help give them a better understanding of the role fathers play in conception. It is simple to explain. Here is an excerpt.
Mommies have lots of eggs. No, not that kind of egg. That’s from a chicken. Human eggs look more like this. (Did you know you were a human? I bet you did.)
An egg is just an egg and won’t become a baby (or a hamster or a piglet or whatever else)
sperm comes along to join the egg.
I bet you can guess where the sperm comes from. Yup, you got it -- Daddies make sperm!
And when a sperm and an egg join together, a new person (or a hamster, or a piglet, or whatever else) starts to form. Some animals start life on the outside, and some start inside their mommies. Some are born; some are hatched.
At this point, at the point of conception, a pregnancy has begun. That is a simple, observable fact. Biologically speaking, a new human exists, and therefore, any action taken by the mother after this point in time is as a mother. The decision about wether she will become a parent has already been made and cannot be changed.
Now, if at this point, she determines that continuing as a parent is not best, then there are some responsible decisions she can make for her child to thrive. Early termination could not possibly be one of these.
The decision about wether she will become a parent has already been made and cannot be changed.
And really what we are saying is similar to this situation with my children: I say It's time for bed. Go upstairs. To which I get a response like but Charlotte's not going upstairs. It's an argument about fairness, I know. The problem is this: Charlotte's actions have no bearing on say, Chris's responsibilities. The fact that Charlotte is disobeying me doesn't give Chris or Charlie the right to disobey. Further, it is sad that they should want my permission to be like the worst of them.
Some fathers are evil. They refuse to care for children they have made, and because the child is not growing inside them, it is relatively easy for them to get out of parenting altogether. For a woman to do the same, she would have to not give birth to the child who is already growing within her.
It is sad that we should want to be anything like men in this way. By nature, children are protected within their mothers -- naturally protected from total abandonment.
It's not about fairness.