When Pro-Lifers acts like Pro-Choicers
"If you are fighting for your individual right and liberty to shop, get your nails done, cut your hair, and go to a live church service at the cost of human life — you are PRO-CHOICE, not PRO-LIFE.'" ~ Soong-Chan Rah (I added the all-caps)
This is a provocative statement, but we need to sit with it (because many times we our convictions and actions aren't integrated very well).
A person who insists they can do what they want with their body, that no one is allowed to regulate their body, regardless if it endangers the body of someone else, is making A PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT.
Pro-abortion rhetoric insists that the child's body is insignificant compared to the woman's body, and that they woman has the right to her body.
A person who insists that others have a right to our body when it comes to matters of life and death, even if it interferes with the desires or goals of our body, is making A PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT.
Pro-life arguments claim that a child's body has rights even if those right impinge on the rights of the mother. Pro-life arguments claim that a persons right to their own body is not the beginning and end of how bodies (and people) relate together.
When it comes to a pandemic, to place your BODY and its RIGHTS and desires (call them freedoms) above the BODIES of the vulnerable (who are now the elderly instead of infants) is to align with the arguments of pro-choice rhetoric.
The TWO ADJUSTMENTS: If what I say is true, then either:

1) Pro-Lifers need to condemn those who protest government closings on the basis of individual rights.
OR,

2) Pro-Lifers need to be honest that they are just "anti-abortion" and aren't really "for life" in all its instances.

What do you think? What would you add/subtract from this?
You can follow @geoffholsclaw.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: