A Pro-Life Approach

Why Those Who Think It's Just about Anti-Abortion are Wrong

By Broadside Opinion Contributor Michael Gryboski

Formed in the 2003-04 academic year, Students For Life, according to its website,
sees as its main purpose, “To establish justice and the right to life for the unborn through education. To help women and men in crisis pregnancies find support services for themselves and for their unborn children.” Some look at the name of this
student organization and already view it as politically loaded.

The emphasis on the word “life,” not only in SFL’s title but its use in the blanket label “prolife,” may lead “pro-choice” advocates to cry foul, claiming that a more accurate name for “pro-life” activists should be “anti-abortion,” “anti-choice,” or
even “anti-female.” Yet the term “pro-life” is accurate when understood within the context of SFL’s mission statement and past actions.

Let’s start with the increasingly used term, “antiabortion.” There is an inherent
negative connotation present and it implies that all activists opposed to abortion strive to outlaw abortion and restrict access to it. Yet there is more to it than that, as Mason’s SFL has showcased both in word and deed. According to the SFL website, “We promote compassionate alternatives to abortion such as adoption and
pregnancy care centers through education, events, and advertising.”

In addition to preaching this, SFL has practiced it. In the past they have organized
charitable events called Diaper Drives, which have involved gathering supplies necessary for postnatal care and distributing them. SFL is not alone, for the usual suspects also do more than just demand that abortion be criminalized.

The infamous rightwing preacher, Jerry Falwell, established the Liberty Godparent Foundation, which provides resources for unwed mothers, creating an alternative
for women who may seek an abortion because of an inability to provide for their child.

Another problem with “anti-abortion” is that some prochoice organizations could fit
that label. For example, Planned Parenthood of America, a major abortion provider, hopes to reduce the number of abortions performed.

As they state online, this can be achieved through “increased access to affordable
contraception and comprehensive, medically accurate sex education.” By wanting a reduction in abortion numbers, doesn’t that make Planned Parenthood “antiabortion?” Let’s not forget the large number of people who, while believing that abortion should be legal, also find the practice troubling and would
never seek one. They must be “anti-abortion” to an extent as well.

“Anti-choice” is another designation given to people who prefer to be called “pro-life.” Again, the implication is that they do not provide other options for pregnant women.

Given the various other options out there with having the child like adoption or aid
from charitable organizations, choices are still present. It is possible that one could twist this title to fit people most consider defenders of choice. Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, the man who delivered the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, wrote in said opinion, “some . . . argue that the women’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way and for
whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.” Would that make the author of the majority opinion of Roe “anti-choice”?

In addition to the usage of “anti-choice,” there is an even more disparaging term being thrown around. That term is “anti-female.” It is often alleged by pro-choice activists that their ideological opponents are misogynists. This flies in the face of recorded history, as leading feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul were
both pro-life and viewed abortion as a means of exploiting women rather than
liberating them. Anthony dubbed abortion “child murder” and Paul called the procedure “the ultimate exploitation of women.” So the question presents itself: were these feminists “anti-female”?

“Pro-life” is a much better title because it encompasses the overall message of both,
outlawing a brutal medical procedure and providing alternative services that would
benefit mother and child. It also serves as a good title because it stresses the biggest argument abortion opponents have: the life argument. The value of human
life, the belief in life beginning at conception, the view that the law should protect life, all applies quite well.

Michael Gryboski is a member of Students for Life.