Each human on earth should have a fair and equal chance of living without state or government enforced limitations as to who is allowed to live and who shall die. Pro life laws choose to save fetuses at the cost of born life. One life or potential life should not be placed above another and made more important by government or religion. One life should not be legislated to live when other lives are not. To do so is state forced death.
Our nations, states and religions should allow for a person’s personal limits and personal circumstances to be controlled by that person and not be dictated in such a manner that the natural course of events for that person is unavoidable death. There are certain actions that can only lead to death and our governments should not force citizens to take paths that will lead to their own destruction, especially if that path is obscure or circuitous.
There should be no governmental or religious laws that force citizens to follow paths that lead to certain death. The passage of “pro life” legislation is deceitful and leads to a path to death. Obscure or circuitous paths that lead to death are as wrong as direct paths. In fact if a government is intentionally choosing an obscure path then that governmental act is especially immoral because such laws fool people into supporting their own demise.
It is despotic for a government to choose to give preference to the fetal form of life over born life. Each human should have an equal and fair chance at life as determined by their own choices and circumstances. Born humans should not be forced to compete against fetuses to remain alive.
For example many people would agree that if a nation were to pass a law that required one group to die and for another to live based upon the size of that person then such a law would be immoral. Pro life laws demand the fetus be saved and no such laws exists to save born life.
And if a government passed a law that said that only people of a certain age should be saved from death, such a law would be immoral. Pro life laws demand that fetal life be saved, but no such law exists for born life.
And if a government defined life that is non-human to be more important than human life and that human life should be allowed to die to save non-human life, that would be immoral. And pro life laws that demand zygotes be saved at conception are laws that place non human life over human life.
Or if a government were to pass a law that obscure or probable life, that may or may not exist, be given preference over certain life, that too would be immoral. And pro life laws demand that zygotes/embryos/fetuses be saved, yet no similar law exists for born life.
If questionable life hidden from sight were to be saved and deemed more important than life that is observable that would be immoral. Yet that is what pro life laws do, they demand that hidden life, that may not even exist, be forced to live while born life that can be seen and touched is allowed to die.
And finally if a government determined that questionable or unprovable life were more important than unquestionable or established life then that would also be immoral and not fair to established life. Pro life laws require the “saving” of life that may or may not exist, yet no such law exists to save born life.
Government should not be allowed to determine whom will live and whom will die based upon arbitrary measures of human value.
Is there a logical function of government that requires it to pick and choose which life will live and which will die? No, there is no logical function of government that would allow it to protect one life or one form of life, if that determination will cause the death of another human.
Should governments protect the life of those who cannot protect themselves? Yes, if that protection can be proved not to lead to the death or harm of another human.
Should governments choose to save lives that cannot be proved to be capable of living if it causes the death of the living? No, because living people will die at the expense of unproved life.
There is of course a process that does not cause death that can be used by governments, charities and religions to protect life. Governments should enforce triage in situations that involve public money, charitable gifts and religious donations. And that function of triage should not be limited to current situations but should take into consideration anticipated future events and the limits of mankind related to his environment. For example people should save the most life possible taking into account future resources and anticipated events.
There is another purpose for governments. They should honestly inform their citizens of the number of deaths and the number of people saved and the cost and resources required to save life. That purpose should also include setting up and maintaining a method to save the most life possible with the resources available.
When does a government cause the death of one citizen while protecting the life of another? The short answer is that a government causes the death of one citizen when it commits to placing the importance of the life of a fetus above the life of born humans. How does that occur? It occurs by passing laws that require that one person be protected while at the same time ignoring its duty to protect all citizens equally.