Today, January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Since that time, we've watched this right -- the right to control our own bodies -- be eroded.

Because even with our constant vigilance, we have things like the Colorado for Equal Rights for Human Life group getting approval for a ballot initiative that would let Colorado voters decide that a fertilized egg is equivalent in all respects to a human being. ([link])

"It doesn't outlaw abortion, it doesn't regulate birth control," said Kristi Burton, 20, of Colorado for Equal Rights and the initiative's sponsor. "It's just a constitutional principle. We're laying a foundation that every life deserves protection."

The ultimate goal, however, of the group is to ban all abortions. The group's founder, Mark Meuser, is up-front about that: "We're defining when personhood begins... in this state, there would be no abortions."

"Our goal is to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and argue the personhood of the preborn baby. When we were writing this, we wanted to have a singular focus so that nobody is confused," Meuser said. "We want to force the argument that has been avoided for 34 years by the U.S. Supreme Court."

We also have exciting new movements to fight against, such as the so-called Post-Abortive Men’s Movement. "We had abortions," said Mark B. Morrow, a Christian counselor. "I've had abortions." For more on the post-abortive men’s movement, see [link]

This particular bit leapt out at me:
Aubert has since converted to Catholicism. He and his wife have five children, and they sometimes protest in front of abortion clinics. Every now and then, though, Aubert wonders: What if his first girlfriend had not aborted? How would his life look different?
He might have endured a loveless marriage and, perhaps, a sad divorce. He might have been saddled with child support as he tried to build his legal practice. He might never have met his wife. Their children -- Christine, Kyle, Roch, Paul, Vance -- might not exist.
"I wouldn't have the blessings I have now," Aubert said. So in a way, he said, the two abortions may have cleared his path to future happiness.
"That's an intellectual debate I have with myself," he said. "I struggle with it."
In the end, Aubert says his moral objection to abortion always wins. If he could go back in time, he would try to save the babies.
But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?
Aubert looks startled. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says slowly.

His ex-girlfriends got theirs, now he wants to make sure no one else has one, what with the protesting at abortion clinics. And while he gets that his life is better, it never occurs to him to wonder if those women's lives are better, too. "I never really thought about it for the woman," he says.

And that's the crux of the problem: No one ever does think about the women. Nor is this a problem solely limited to abortion rights. The problem with this country is that we don't want to take care of the ones we have, but we'll get up in arms about ones that don't even exist.
The equation should be simple: Take care of the veterans you have before making more. Take care of the kids who already exist in this country before forcing women to have more. Take care of the people already existing in our society before worrying about ones who may never come to pass.

We won't pay for welfare, for education, medicine. We will fight for the right of a child to be born, but not for giving the child a chance to be healthy, fed, educated or given a chance. We'll fight to force a woman to have a baby, but we won't fight to give her the option not to.

We care more about humans who don't exist than the ones who do.

In the equation between a potential human being and an actual one, there shouldn't be any contest. Women should be more important to us than a concept.

That's why being Pro-Choice *is* being Pro-Life.