An 'out of sight out of mind' conclusion.
This is exactly what I've lost patience with about the politically-organized pro-life movement (this and the habit of lying and catastrophizing about pro-choicers' motivations). It's like this old Simpsons clip writ large.
I know this is a sensitive subject so I do want to tread carefully, but I can see why it's frustrating.
For me the pro-life movement is a 'pursuit' in want of a goal. However as long as women can fall pregnant and for pregnancy to have complications of any sort internal or external, it is not possible to be 'pro-life' to a definite, 'in all scenarios'
conclusion. You can't stop rape, you can't make bodies physically 'ready' when they aren't developed. You can't change the nature of sex to nothing more than procreation to only when a child is required. You can't make people take on unwanted children. You could try, but in doing so and upending and patrolling human social-sexual interactions would be sinister.
You can only advocate for it at a
personal one to one level and to be fair those who do (and it's been some time, so I don't know what your position is) tend to be disengaged from any mass pro-life movement, not necessarily just because it's politicised but because the movement doesn't have a workable goal. If the end goal is Argentina, where the above article happens and back street abortions still happen at comparable rates to legal abortions in most countries and perhaps even more so, or El Salvador where mothers are jailed and miscarriages are treated with suspicion, then we have as strange a dystopia (and one seemingly imbued with 'vengeance') as any 'pro-choice' free-for-all-fill-your-boots dystopia that a pro-lifer might think we reside in.
My own position has shifted a little in that I think it's only possible to entertain both positions at once, that the 'choice' is entrusted to the mother as to how she views what she carries and isn't determined by a nihilistic philosophical and scientific drive to define 'life' at a determinate start point for each and every one of us at the same point (in part because I hold the same position when it comes to end of life choices) so that a mother should be supported in her choice to consider what she holds 'life' from the earliest possible moment, even if she herself can not look after the child or not, and seek a termination if that is how she perceives it. Which I accept is clearly still 'pro-choice' but less rooted in HARD SCIENCE which I think both sides are too eager to invoke.
