ReproWrites: Being 'pro-life' isn't enough.

What does the term “pro-life” mean? Some who have identified themselves as pro-life say the term means that they value life at all stages, from its natural beginning to its natural end. Yet, is being pro-birth enough? Pro-life activists seem to spend so much of their time concentrating on preventing abortion that they overlook improving the lives of those born.

What good does standing outside a Planned Parenthood yelling at people do for children and families? It doesn’t help parents feed, clothe or educate their children. It only shames and deters people who are more than likely seeking an STI test or cancer screening. Attempting to prevent abortion while not doing anything to help those living in poverty can’t be considered pro-life. Especially when you consider the fact that infant mortality rates among children living in poverty are much higher than those living above the poverty line; 60 percent higher, to be exact. 

Just because a child is born does not in any way guarantee it a long or happy life. Anyone who is genuinely concerned with protecting and improving life at all stages would advocate for things that would help alleviate poverty, like donating diapers, milk or clothing to those in need. Fight for a good life, not life in general. 

What about organizations who advertise themselves as pro-life? In general, it is difficult to find definitive answers about how much of their money these organizations spend on what. Take the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation as an example. Only one of the five ways their website says they spend the money in their general fund would benefit life after birth. Note their nine ways their educational fund is spent as well and how only one does anything other than oppose abortion.  It seems that there are more ways for this organization to spend their money that would be more beneficial to the lives of children.

Another, less publicized, way many people fail to actually adhere to pro-life ideology is by harming elderly citizens. Paul Ryan, for example, is publicly pro-life but also supports reducing the availability of retirement funds available to older individuals.  He has proposed privatizing Medicare and raising the age at which people can access Medicare, as noted by Forbes contributor John Wasik. Decreasing an elderly person’s quality of life by placing financial hardships on them doesn’t seem consistent with valuing life at all stages.

Without doing anything to truly increase a person’s quality of life after birth you can’t call yourself pro-life. The correct term for those who oppose abortion but don’t take any action to help individuals after that point is simply pro-birth.

Karinne Hill is a sophomore studying sociology-criminology and women's gender and sexuality studies at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. How do you help others live a fruitful life after birth? Let Karinne know by tweeting her @karinnehill.