There are 4 aspects of being Pro-Life. They are as follows:
1. Ecological Consciousness
Life is a community.
The Community of Life is the ground of all Lives within it. Every living Being within the Community depends on the Community, and cannot exist without the Community. If the Community ails or collapses, all of its members follow its fate.
The Community of Life is very complex, with all members being interrelated in a nearly infinite series of relationships that no one, not even the smartest scientist, fully understands. And it functions best when least-interfered with. Therefore, it is wise to minimize our interference, to the absolute best of our ability. In other words, we should treat the Community of Life with respect and reverence. We should recognize the sacredness of all Life. All of it.
All Life has value, and the value is intrinsic. The value of a Life does not come from Man, and is not assigned by Man. The value of Life exists independently of its economic utility to Man. The value of Life is not connected to its "usefulness."
If you don't care about the Community of Life...
...or if you don't even recognize that it exists...
...or, if you acknowledge its reality, but still only see it as a "resource" to exploit, as "property" to "own"...
...and you don't mind seeing the whole community erased...
...then how can you call yourself "pro-life"?
Even if you claim to respect "the environment", as a resource, and acknowledge the importance of preserving it "for future usage", but still don't recognize its intrinsic value as a Community of Life, that's not really being "pro-life" either - it's really just pro-self-interest.
If you don't revere the land, waters, and sky...
...if you don't respect the very ground of Life itself...
...then you applying the title of "pro-life" to yourself is a joke.
2. Animal Rights
Non-human animals represent 99.9% of the sentient lives on this planet. They also represent 99.9% of the torture and slaughter that humans are inflicting upon Life.
Every year, hundreds of billions of sentient beings are born into a life of cages, where they almost never feel grass or soil beneath their feet, nor see the light of day - and spend their whole lives in such a tight space that they're unable to spread their limbs.
And waiting for them at the end of this horrific process, is a slaughterhouse - a giant machine, specifically designed for maximum killing at maximum speed.
The vast majority of people who identify as "pro-life" believe that slaughterhouses should exist. They believe that a society that builds entire factories dedicated to nothing but highly efficient mechanized slaughter, can call itself "pro-life."
Look at that. Does that look "pro-life" to you?
Some so-called "pro-lifers" spend their time displaying bloody, disgusting, horrific pictures of abortions, outside abortion facilities, and then recoil and get offended if someone tries to show them a bloody, disgusting, horrific picture of a slaughterhouse. Then, they go out to the supermarket and pay people to keep the slaughterhouses - the same ones they just took offense at - operating.
"Eww that's offensive, don't show me that."
This is a mind-blowing level of hypocrisy. It's staggering in its obliviousness.
3. General Human Rights
There are people who call themselves "pro-life" while supporting imperial wars to conquer the world in the name of "Manifest Destiny." They think it's OK to drop bombs on children because their leaders don't align with the Empire or recognize its supremacy.
There are people who call themselves "pro-life" while arguing that immigration is such a crime that it warrants separating children from their families and putting them in cages, without toothpaste, towels, showers, or basic hygiene.
There are "pro-lifers" who think poor people who can't afford medicine should just die.
And homeless people should sleep on the street, and freeze to death, while there are 6 empty houses for every house-less person.
Needless to say, this is hypocrisy. These people shouldn't call themselves "pro-life."
4. Pre-Born Rights
And finally we come to the pre-born. Life inside the womb.
This is a serious topic. It shouldn't be ignored. The pre-born are part of the Community of Life, and they deserve more ethical consideration than they're currently getting.
But if you apply the "pro-life" label to yourself, we can only take that label seriously if you also acknowledge the other 3 categories just listed.
If you care about fetuses, but not the rest, then it's not compassion or respect for Life that's motivating you. Something else is going on.
If someone thinks forests should be clear-cut, and slaughterhouses should exist, and people less privileged than themselves should die on the street (or from bombs their country is dropping on them), but yet they somehow care about fetuses, then we can only conclude that such a person has some kind of ulterior motive.
And that motive is, in most cases, religion. Such people aren't motivated by "care for the vulnerable" - they're simply seeking brownie points from a deity.
They're not feeling sorry for the downtrodden - they're simply following orders. They've heard that their "eternal salvation" depends on being obedient, and they're simply looking out for Number One.
"Yes, maybe so. But they're still GOOD ORDERS. Isn't it a good thing that my deity tells me to respect the lives of the pre-born? Isn't it a good conclusion to reach, regardless of what path I took to reach it?"
No, it isn't.
"Why not? It's saving pre-born lives, isn't it?"
Actually, it's not. Its contributing to the problem.
"Are you saying religiously-motivated opposition to abortion is causing there to be more abortions?"
"OK... and how might that work, exactly?"
Religious order-following reinforces the concept of Identity-Based Morality, which is the philosophical foundation of all oppression and all bigotries - including bigotry against the pre-born.
"What is this "Identity-Based Morality" thing?"
Identity-Based Morality is the idea that morality derives from a specific identity - a specific person or personage.
In such a worldview, right and wrong are not defined by any intrinsic qualities - but by external validation from a specific individual entity, who usually lives in the sky and is usually depicted sitting on some kind of big golden throne.
Here is a handy chart showing the Levels of Moral Comprehension:
At the bottom, we have pre-moral - the level of not conceiving of the concept of morality at all. It's just instinct.
Above that, we have Power-Based Morality, which is the idea that morality comes from those who have power. When someone says "the State gets to decide what's right and what's wrong, because they have the power to enforce their determinations", they are arguing from this level.
But Power-Based Morality is actually nothing more than pre-morality, dressed up in fancier words. They're the same thing. Their distinction is illusory. If you believe "those with the guns make the rules", then you're really just saying "those with the fangs make the rules." It's nothing but "might makes right" either way.
And if the people with the power to do XYZ also get to decide whether XYZ is moral or immoral... then what's the point in even having a concept of morality in the first place? There isn't any.
The next level is Identity-Based Morality. If you're using the argument that "abortion is wrong because God said so", then this is the level you're arguing from.
This level seems higher than the previous two, but it's actually not. Because you're not arguing that abortion (and killing in general) is bad because it's *intrinsically* bad. Nope. It's only bad because a particular personage decided it's bad. And by corollary, if that same personage changes his mind and decides abortion is GOOD, then voila, it becomes good!
We shouldn't need to explain how fragile of a system that is, and how much danger it poses, or how much destruction it's caused over the millennia.
"But He's not just any dude - He's God. So it's different! He has the right to declare anything He wants, and decide what's moral and immoral, because of Who He Is."
Well, why? Why him?
Why does he get to decide?
What is it about him - what quality does he possess - that makes him different, that makes his identity the identity from which the definition of morality emanates?
Power, of course. He's (if the book is true) the person who made the world - the only person with the Power to do so. Since he's much more Powerful than us, it's he who makes the laws. And thus we sink back down into Power-Based Morality. Might makes right. He who has the fangs or the guns or the lightning-bolts or the discretion over eternal salvation vs. damnation, makes the rules. This is a backwards slide, away from true moral reasoning, and into the darkness of pre-intellect.
Identity-Based and Power-Based moralities are really the same thing. Their difference is illusory. Because all Identity-Based claims ultimately rest on Power as their defining characteristic. Power is the trait that determines which Identity gets to be the Identity that holds the key.
So if we all were to believe in a moral system based on Identity and/or Power (which most people do, having grown up in a civilization founded on the Bible, which promotes such thinking), then we could all rationalize heinous things, using Power and Identity (which again, most people do).
An abortionist can argue (as they do all the time) that it's the mother who gets to choose. Why? Because that's just who she is! The definition of right and wrong, in this situation, is not based on any NATURAL equation - it's based solely on Identity.
They can also argue that, since it's LEGAL, it's therefore MORAL. Because the State is the identity that decides. Why? Because it's got the Power.
Power --> Identity --> Morality.
Even if people don't believe consciously in the Bible, the philosophy in it has a shaping-effect on the patterns we develop. It shapes our minds to view Power as the source of the Identity which in turn is the source of Morality - and so, even if we stop believing in that specific identity (God), we've still been TRAINED to look for SOME identity - and to use Power as the defining characteristic when searching. And we end up falling for various other powerful identities, whether they be demagogues, cult leaders, or simply the State in general (as 99% of people currently do). And once you have that situation, all it takes is one "law" to be passed, and you've got neighbors throwing neighbors into gas-chambers. Or aborting late-term fetuses. Or torturing animals. Because it's "legal."
So the Biblical argument isn't some "pure" standard to repair to. Morality is complex. It requires independently driven examination. Every person should be on a personal journey to figure out right from wrong, using empathy and reason. It's a constant learning process. Relying on a single book - especially one written thousands of years ago, which doesn't even make an attempt at dissecting the nuances of moral philosophy - is a recipe for oppression and atrocities.
"So then where does morality come from?"
True morality is Empathy-Based.
If you observe another living being in the midst of some kind of suffering, you're supposed to be able to realize that it's not something you would want for yourself - and therefore, since you don't want it for yourself, it would be wrong to do it unto others.
It's that simple. Very straightforward logic. Very easy to get. So easy, toddlers can understand it.
You're supposed to be able to do it, on your own, with or without any book or guru or religion.
"So then why are so many people unable to do so?"
Because they've been confused by another moral system that's been superimposed on top of the real one. They may still feel and know intuitively what's right and wrong, but they also have religion and/or the State telling them something entirely different, often contradictory, to true morality, and they're confused. They're looking for commandments from someone else - usually a big strong powerful someone else - instead of listening to their inner wisdom (i.e. their hearts).
And they're looking to a big strong authority figure to define morality for them because they've been conditioned to do that, for generation after generation, by their religion. The book taught them, and their ancestors, for centuries, to put aside their empathy and instead take moral instructions from a big strong guy, solely because he's big and strong. They still have the empathy, but they're not listening to it, because it's being obscured by book-morality, based on the Identity of the Powerful guy.
"So what's your point?"
The point is, when you rely on religious commandments to define something (like abortion) as wrong, you're reinforcing Identity-Based Morality, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
If you really want to help the pre-born (and all oppressed types of Beings), then the only real way to do that is by increasing compassion.
Start caring about ecosystems, even though your holy book doesn't tell you to.
Start caring about animals, even though your holy book doesn't tell you to.
If you start caring about these, then you'll raise the overall tide of compassion in your society. And a more compassionate society will be kinder to all of its members - including the pre-born.
Compassion is like an ocean tide - as it rises, it lifts all boats.
This is why the animal rights movement and the fetus rights movement are highly intersectional. You can't really care about one without caring about the other.
If you claim to care about the pre-born, but only because Mr. Big commanded you to, then you're not spreading compassion, and not opening hearts, and not teaching love. You're merely following orders. That's it. And that does nothing to raise society's overall level of consciousness.
And spreading the concept of "divine commandments" doesn't raise consciousness. It doesn't teach compassoin. It simply reinforces Identity-Based Morality.
So not only are you not helping to raise consciousness, but you're actually bringing it down, into the darkness of Identity-Based Morality, the philosophical foundation of all oppression.
Raising consciousness is the only way to actually create a solid lasting respect for the rights of the pre-born, as well as others. The only way forward is a compassionate society.