The important difference between pro-choice and the pro-life depends on the same principle — the establishment or proof of a human life.
This is an important factor because even a pro-choice person would agree that unfairly taking the life of any human being merits punishment. To bypass such a rule to then contemplate freedom of choice would be similar to using a conclusion to discredit the premise in which the freedom of choice validates its own self.
It is ludicrous to defend a matter without presenting the value of what is being defended. Therefore, if choosing an abortion is similar to having a tooth extraction to spare the inconvenience of the pain to the sufferer, such freedom apparently is exercised without intruding on another’s right to differ if they could.
But, is choosing to have an abortion merely an individual or personal matter?
There is documented evidence showing that human life begins from a very early stage of conception — almost like a person compressed into a capsule state waiting to explode or unfold into several features and characteristics that are already diagramed and secured.
It is also true that the embryo is viewed by the mother’s body as a foreign object — a separate being that is protected only by the delicate haven that the womb provides and which abortion actually invades.
In reality, therefore, an abortion could become very much like discarding the baby while holding on to the cleansing bathwater that a moral justification may provide.
There is more evidence that supports the uncertain age that makes the unborn a human being than there is for any precise separation of human life from just passive or indifferent tissues. Therefore, if the distinction between mere tissues and an individual remains so nebulous in the womb, those opting for an abortion are actuality using freedom to validate a choice instead of the choice being used to validate such freedom.