It's About Us‎ > ‎Pro-Life Profiles‎ > ‎

Analyzing the Definition of Pro-Life

You cannot heal man's brokenness by breaking more people, anymore than you can fix a broken plate by breaking more dishes.


by M. J. Joachim

For nearly 40 years I've heard the term 'pro-choice' and wondered to myself, "Why? Why would anyone want to be associated with a word that by its very nature implies death and defines the when, where and under what circumstance someone (anyone) should be arbitrarily eliminated from this world?" It is not by accident that the pro-choice movement created a political agenda to further the cause of extinguishing life in society, and managed to play on their coined word of deception, a word that often causes division in the pro-life community.

The very essence of what true pro-choice groups fight for is the right to conscientiously and legally make it okay to harm, and indeed kill, other human beings. It is a movement by design that shuns caring for and uplifting our neighbors, and instead imposes a cold-hearted, inexcusable judgment on (who) people are in society, and whether or not we want them here. This is a far different agenda from the people trapped in the midst of the 'pro-life/pro-choice' debate—the ones who respect people's dignity and have the utmost compassion for their circumstances.

To be pro-life is to have compassion, not just for unborn children and people on the verge of dying—to be pro-life is to be effectively human and care enough to respond to anyone in need. Our hearts must guide us here, for there are many who support limiting a person's suffering, minimizing the impact of a tragedy or traumatic situation and defending a person broken by the wrath of inconceivable cruelty; these same people often align themselves (mistakenly, in my opinion) with the pro-choice movement. Their hearts are in the right place, and they stand up for human dignity, defending and supporting life—a personal pro-life agenda if ever there was one. These same individuals are divided by circumstance, ultimately attempting to choose the lesser of two evils. However, you cannot heal man's brokenness by breaking more people, anymore than you can fix a broken plate by breaking more dishes.

The position of compassionate, empathetic people, is not so much about being pro-choice or pro-life, as it is about being sensitive to a fault, and caring too much (if there is such a thing), while at times blurring the lines of human limitation with divine intervention. Their intention is not to cause harm or death; nor is it financially or politically motivated, and as such cannot be construed as selfish and deriving from ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Rather, the statement professed by "pro-choice" supporters who feel compassion and empathy, is in fact a pro-life declaration, proclaimed in a world that has become desensitized to the very essence of what it means to be human in the first place.

The main issue is not about words for them or anyone, who recognizes the value of human life and seeks to treat all people with dignity and respect; these are matters of the heart, which cannot and should not be defined by monetary gain, political power and personal prestige. The response emanates from every corner of the earth. To be pro-choice is to destroy the evidence, not to address the underlying pain and cause of people who need the rest of us to stand with them in their suffering, thereby promoting the real pro-life cause of defending life in all situations and circumstances, which is what it ultimately means to be effectively human.


All photos used on this site are Public Domain unless otherwise credited.

©2011, 2012 All Rights Reserved Teresa DePoy