Pro Choice? Are you sure?

Since Roe V. Wade America has been divided between the 'Pro-Choice' and the 'Pro-Life.' I often hear people who are pro choice say things like, 'I wouldn't get an abortion myself, but that's my choice.' or 'its none of my business what someone else does with their body.' There are variations, some don't want children or only want a certain number, some are just trying to support woman. The personal reasons are different but the idea is the same; My body, My choice.

Now there's a lot that could be said about that but what I want to get to today is the question of why. Why are pro life advocates against 'choice?' Why can't they accept woman's 'right' to control her own body? Why can't they just not have abortions and let everyone else make their own decisions? 

Or more importantly; Why they think abortion is wrong in the first place.

You see the reason that they are pro life is the reason that they can't stand by in silence.

From what I understand, to be pro life is to believe that every life should be protected from unjust attacks. To believe that human life has an inherent dignity and should be respected, from its beginning to natural death. Its the belief that that life begins at the moment when an egg and sperm are joined to create a new strand of DNA, entirely unique and completely human. Its to believe that the value of life to be constant, not variable. 

See I really think that that's the heart of the matter: one side says that the definition  and value of life changes based on conditions (such as; age, born or pre-born, conditions of conception, medical conditions, the mother's perception, or local law.) The other holds it to be constant, unchanged by circumstance. 

Consider this; in some states the abortion cutoff is considered 24 weeks, in others it's 20 weeks. This is mainly based off of 'fetal viability.'  The problem with this is 1.) It is somewhat inconclusive, most experts say fetal viability is at 22 weeks, but the youngest premi on record was born at 21 weeks. 2.) It is subject to change, medical advancements are being made every year making survival in early births more likely.

But what is the difference between a fetus who is dependent on it's mother for the necessary nourishment to develop and a baby who is likewise dependent on others for the same things?

Genetically a fetus registers the same at all points of its development, from conception to birth (and after.)  From a DNA test science would classify them all the same way and as the same thing, human.

So a fetus is human, scientifically, but does it have the same value? How is human value to be determined? Is it the ability to survive on one's own? Then that would class babies, as well as those with disabilities or of advanced age, as of a lesser value. And who decides, is it different for different cases?

That doesn't sound right does it?

You see when you say that you are pro choice, aren't you really saying that you think individuals should have the right to assign different values to humans according to circumstance? If you can decide when someone starts being a person, then does it not follow that you also decide when they stop being one? What is the difference between a human fetus and a human person?

If a fetus is only a mass of human genetic material and only becomes a person after a certain point then someone has to draw the line, someone has to say when that is. Do we have that right? Should it be an individual's choice to define the personhood of another 'potential' person?

Should anyone have that kind of power?