I am strongly Pro-Life. I believe that it is an outmoded and unscientific belief that a person's life starts with the first breath. We now know that a child's brain (starting as a neural cluster) and heart begin to function as early as 18 days after conception. By 6-7 weeks, the brain has developed into its basic structure and the heart is beating regularly. As our medical definition of death includes the irreversible end of heart, lung, and brain function, these children are quite alive by scientific and medical standards. We may in the future learn even more about the development of the human body, mind, and soul that further support my belief that the child should be treated as a child from the moment of conception.
Within the womb, the child is both amazingly resilient and fragile at the same time, capable of surviving immense trauma but also succumbing to the mildest circumstances. Thus, I am both fully against the practice of killing these children AND the idea of prosecuting the mothers who have lost their children. The trauma of losing a child is terrible enough without then having to face inquiry and perhaps punishment. Yet, abortion is an abomination that is the leading cause of death in the U.S., in some years nearly doubling the second largest cause of death (heart disease). This needs to stop.
My Pro-Life beliefs are not limited to abortion. I am against euthanasia, suicide (assisted or not), research that involves the destruction of embryos, in vitro fertilization, most birth control, the death penalty, homicide, genocide, and war. I know that there are sometimes justifications for the death of another human being (especially in defense of one's self or others), but I especially am wary of a government that advocates for the use of death as a policy. I also feel that all of the above issues lead to an overall devaluing of human life that has had and will have a significant negative impact on our culture.
So why didn't I add a Pro-Life plank to my new party's platform? Because in 42 years, it has costs hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better spent in providing social services and support of the children who have been killed during this time. I believe that the platform of this party is one that people with very different views on Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issues can still support together. I believe that most people on both sides of the issue are genuinely concerned about the health and well-being of all people. Both sides are doing what they feel is right against what they feel is a massive social injustice. Meanwhile, politicians have used both sides of this issue to fund their elections while supporting nearly everything that the Enlightened Revolution stands against.
And so, I take it off the table. People running under the Party of Enlightened Revolution would have to agree to not take money from interest groups not directly aligned to the party's platform. They may have a variety of views on these subjects, but these issues should not be the keys to their campaigns (or perhaps a part of their campaign at all). I know that some people might think this to be naive on my part, but I think that we (as Americans, as humans) have more in common than not. Yet our politics bog down in our differences and doesn't get the things we know need to be done accomplished. The Enlightened Revolution is about furthering the progress of humanity, not using hot-button topics for cheap political gain.