Competing definitions of the term “pro-life” have swirled around social media, political speeches, and debates this year. For a culture that has not centered itself around a consistent valuation of human life by any stretch of the imagination, it’s a debate that is equal parts odd and hypocritical — and badly needed.
The pro-life movement became especially prominent following the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, though it had begun in earnest many years prior. For some time, the anti-abortion stance of this movement was synonymous with the term “pro-life.” Thankfully, that is changing, and this position is now more commonly referred to as “pro-birth” as people recognize that there is more to a pro-life worldview than merely one’s opinion on abortion.
According to the Left, one cannot call herself pro-life unless she fully endorses the Democratic platform. Internet memes abound mocking those who consider themselves to be pro-life but who do not support a full welfare state with universal basic income, socialized healthcare, and rent cancellation. Convenient as that definition would be for them, one does not have to subscribe to socialism to be pro-life. In fact, I would adamantly argue the contrary — socialism has led to the devastation and destitution of countless lives — but that’s for another piece.
Equally narrow is the definition often found on the Right. Many who would call themselves pro-life justify immigrant children being taken from their families at the border, or support allowing refugees to be trapped in war zones — war zones we often helped to create — and support war in general. We find those who write off victims of police brutality as thugs or drug dealers, erasing their value with dehumanizing language and excusing the loss of life. We see people who shrug off evidence of racial bias in our laws and practices, those who shame single mothers who choose to keep and raise their children, and even those who assure us they would “flip the switch themselves” in execution chambers.
I could go on. And how pro-life can others really be who advocate for trapping kids in failing government schools, condemning them to cycles of poverty, when options like school choice could easily be made available? Can I call myself pro-life if I argue against a social safety net for those with disabilities or who fall on hard times? To what extent do we take the term pro-life? Can the government ever be fully pro-life without treating every man, woman, and child as its personal responsibility?
The simple reality is the government cannot care for every person’s needs, wants, and desires. It especially cannot do that without infringing upon the basic rights of others.
When it comes to matters of public policy, we therefore must focus on the question of what can be done to best protect the individual’s rights, liberty, and ability to prosper. That is not to say that as pro-life adherents we should not privately concern ourselves with charity and helping those less fortunate. We should. But robbing others, forcing them to participate in our solutions, treading on their liberty, and ability to prosper — that is not pro-life.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and opposition of the other, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages is what every part is entitled to and ought to enjoy.”
Our entire founding was predicated on the importance of individual liberty. Our structures are erected to enshrine and protect these values from an always encroaching government. We fell short of living up to those values with our original sin of slavery, and we’ve been coming up short of them for some time.
There isn’t much we can agree upon these days, but the belief that all lives have value, at all times, should be one of them. The belief that all are born with natural rights, rights that cannot be given but only taken away, such as the right to defend oneself, to practice one’s faith, to move, or to work, should be another. The belief that governments should be restrained from harming individuals, taking away their lives, liberty, or property, should be one of them as well.
A society grounded in this belief would at least be on its way toward becoming a pro-life society. We are nowhere close.
Hannah Cox (@HannahCox7) is a libertarian-conservative activist and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.
