Is Twilight's "Breaking Dawn" Pro-Life?

L-R: Pregnant Bella Swan (played by Stewart)
with Rosalie (Nikki Reed)

In the most recent installment of the Twilight saga, the lead character, Bella, gets pregnant. Despite the fact that the child is legitimately killing her, she insists on keeping the child to full term. This could be seen - and has been by many - as a pro-life statement. But is it really?
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson both respond to this question - with a resounding "no. "
Stewart explains that it's not about not killing the child, but more about holding on. She said:

Not wanting to give up the baby is about her holding onto that last thing she would have to give up if she was not human anymore. Right after she and Edward sleep with each other for the first time, she says, "Oh, f***, I might want to be human for a little bit longer." The baby is just an even more intense version of that.

One could argue that she is just reading her own interpretation into the character. But Pattinson thoroughly agrees with her statement, and adds:

Even Stephenie [Meyer, author of the Twilight novels] said it doesn't mean any of that. It is based on a dream.  

Just because she wanted the family doesn't
mean it wasn't her choice.

So, there you go. It seems this is just another example of people getting pro-choice and pro-abortion confused. Just like pro-choice mothers, when a woman chooses to keep a child, it does not automatically make her "pro-life." Yes, this situation seems extreme, because the child in question would have cause the death of the mother. While in this circumstance, most people (like her loved ones in the film) who were pro-choice (and I would hope even most pro-lifers as well) would encourage her to have an abortion. But it is ultimately her choice, and that is the choice that is respected.

Hopefully each of us and our loved ones can aspire to be so supportive of a woman's choice, whether or not it is the one with which we agree.