Five Questions for Pro-Life People

These questions were originally written in response to someone who said, "I am a staunch pro-life supporter, and I believe life and the human potential starts at conception. I want everyone to have a chance at life, no matter what. If I could have my dream world, I would eliminate worldwide poverty and hunger. However, I can't always have what I want. Thus, I try to focus on things I can accomplish closer to home, and supporting people who support policies that protect unborn children is something I do. Everyone conceived here in America should have the right to life here in America."

1) What are your reasons for drawing the line of "everyone" at conception?

2) Roughly half of all fertilized (that is, conceived) eggs fail to implant on the uterine wall, and thus never develop into a full-scale pregnancy. If you believe that everyone conceived should have the right to life, are you supporting or advocating for medical research to find out why fertilized eggs fail to implant and to remedy that situation so that all fertilized eggs will have a chance at life?

3) Greater access to birth control and comprehensive sex education would certainly decrease the number of pregnancies that are unwanted, which would in turn reduce the number of unborn children that don't have a chance at life (and numerous studies have shown that birth control reduces poverty as well). Are you opposed to the elements of the pro-life movement that push for limiting access to birth control and advocate abstinence-only sex education?

4) If it were the case that making abortion illegal didn't significantly reduce the number of abortions that women get, but did significantly increase the number of women who died (along with the fetus) from dangerous illegal abortions, would you still say that attempts to make abortion illegal are "policies that protect unborn children?"

5) Try to play along with this hypothetical scenario. Let's say there's a woman who conceives (we'll call that fetus "Jim") at a time when being pregnant or raising a child would completely derail her career and severely limit her earning ability for the rest of her life (just to simplify things, let's say she was using birth control, but it failed). If she doesn't get an abortion, she'll be raising Jim somewhere around the poverty level. If she does get an abortion, she can get the momentum going in her career, and then when she conceives again later (let's call that fetus "Joe"), she'll be able to provide a much better quality of life for her child (whereas, if she keeps Jim, then she doesn't have another kid because she can't afford it). If you're opposed to abortion, aren't you really saying (within the framework of this very specific scenario, granted) that Jim has a greater right to life (which would only be a life of poverty) than Joe (who would have a much better quality of life, in monetary terms, at the very least)?

The Limits of Religious Freedom

If you support the religious freedom bill that was passed in Mississippi (and the one that was vetoed in Georgia), then you probably also support the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, and their right to deny service to LGBT couples.  But do you also support the religious freedom of the following people?

Indiana state trooper fired for proselytizing during traffic stops

Hamilton told Fox 59 that he was "just following what the Lord told me to do and you can’t change what the Lord tells you to do. So if the Lord tells me to speak about Jesus Christ, I do. And that’s why they fired me so that’s where we’re at."

Mississippi RV park owner evicts interracial couple
“Oh, it’s a big problem with the members of my church, my community and my mother-in-law,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t allow that black and white shacking.”

Athol man sues ITD employee under law of Moses

Jensen asserts that if he prevails in the suit, Mosaic law dictates that all damages must be paid in 30 days, or Pemble would be required to forfeit all of the assets he and his family own and his family members and their descendants would be held as bond servants — each paying 20 percent of their monthly income to him — until the debt is finally settled in full.

I can only hope that you think at least some of these people should not be given legal exemption for their sincerely-held religious beliefs.  But then the question becomes, if you agree with the Mississippi law and the Oregon bakers, but not (some or all of) these people, what do you see as the difference between them?  How do you define which sincerely-held religious beliefs should be given legal exemption and which should not?