The meaning of "Pro-Life"

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
perfessor
Scholar
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: Illinois

The meaning of "Pro-Life"

Post #1

Post by perfessor »

It seems to me, watching the news and listening to debates on the abortion issue, that the term "pro-life" has acquired a very limited meaning - as if its adherents were using it as a code word for "anti-abortion".

I consider myself to be pro-life, and here is my (personal) definition:

Against abortion
Against capital punishment
Against war (any war, any time, so this includes Iraq)
Against nuclear testing, armament, re-armament, etc.
Against unrestricted gun ownership
In favor of beating swords into plowshares (as opposed to a foreign policy of providing weapons as a means of support)

I am not opposed to euthanasia, as this includes a quality-of-life decision which can be made by the person.

Oddly, most pro-lifers I talk to only hold one of the above beliefs (guess which one!).

What do YOU think? If you are pro-life, how about those other issues? And what does your priest / pastor / rabbi say about it?
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #11

Post by ST88 »

hannahjoy wrote:
I believe the meaning of anti-abortion is self evident, but would you define your understanding of the term “pro-abortion”.
The view that abortion is not wrong, or should not be illegal.
I agree with BeHereNow about the the term "Pro-Abortion." It implies that abortion should be done in every case. "Pro-Choice" is the better term because the emphasis is on the choice. To echo a famous bumper sticker, my own mother was pro-choice when she had me.

To illustrate the point, I seem to remember that right-wing poster boy Cal Thomas once (1993?) derided Hillary Clinton as a hypocrite for being "Pro-Abortion" at the same time as she was voicing opposition to the forced-abortion part of China's one-child policy. His rationale was that she was for abortions in one country and against them in the other country. This is an example of how getting the semantics wrong can alter the way people think, bending the truth to their will.

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #12

Post by hannahjoy »

"Pro-choice" is misleading because it denies the unborn child any right to make any choice.

And my name is hannahjoy.
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

nikolayevich
Scholar
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post #13

Post by nikolayevich »

ST88 wrote:To echo a famous bumper sticker, my own mother was pro-choice when she had me.
There's also, "Choose life. Your mother did."
ST88 wrote:To illustrate the point, I seem to remember that right-wing poster boy Cal Thomas once (1993?) derided Hillary Clinton as a hypocrite for being "Pro-Abortion" at the same time as she was voicing opposition to the forced-abortion part of China's one-child policy. His rationale was that she was for abortions in one country and against them in the other country. This is an example of how getting the semantics wrong can alter the way people think, bending the truth to their will.
I remember something similar more recently. I agree it really isn't the way to act, primarily because it is untruthful (Clinton obviously wasn't pro-life about China).

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #14

Post by bernee51 »

hannahjoy wrote:"Pro-choice" is misleading because it denies the unborn child any right to make any choice.

And my name is hannahjoy.
Is that with an 'aitch' or a 'haitch'?

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #15

Post by BeHereNow »

hannahjoy:"Pro-choice" is misleading because it denies the unborn child any right to make any choice.

Unfortunately your posts leave more unsaid than said. I will have to read between the lines. You can let me know when (if) I err.

You believe that “pro-abortion” is just as accurate and usable as the term “pro-choice”.
Just as I feel “pro-abortion” give a false impression, you feel “pro-choice” gives a false impression.
You don’t deny that “pro-abortion” gives a false impression, but feel justified in using that term rather than “pro-choice”, because “pro-choice” implies choice, and yet an abortion denies the unborn child (fetus) any right to make any choice.

First I would say an unborn child is not capable of making any choice.
If it is not capable, it can not be denied. If you chain me to a cage, you have not denied me the right to fly like a bird. I am not capable of flying like a bird, so no action or inaction on your part can prevent me from doing that which I can not do.

You may say that simply because the unborn child is alive it is showing a preference for life, and that should be honored. There is in fact, no choice to be made, or that if anyone should have a choice, it should be the unborn child.
Or you may say that in the future, the unborn child would be able to make a choice, so it should remain unharmed by man so that it can develop and mature into a being capable of making a choice.
I wonder what you would have us do with an unborn child who shows clear signs of coming to the end of it’s young life. If for example in the 8th month of gestation the doctor saw signs the fetus was strangling itself on the umbilical cord. One might take this as a clear sign the unborn child had made a choice and was ending its life. It was showing a preference for death. Human intervention would be denying the unborn child its choice to die. Can it be seen any other way?
Or what of a child that is 2 months old. Should it be given the choice of whither to live or die? Since we take the living characteristics of a developing fetus as evidence that it is making a choice to live, should we assume a 2 month old who refuses to eat is giving evidence that it is choosing to die?

If an abortion involves two living beings, only one of them is capable of making a choice, so pro-choice can only be taken one way. There is no miss-representation or distortion of the term. The term is extremely accurate and means exactly what it says.

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #16

Post by hannahjoy »

I can see how "pro-abortion" would be misleading. So is "pro-choice".
I realize an unborn child can't make a choice. Killing that child keeps him from ever having any chance to make any choice. That's not "pro-choice".

You're welcome to coin third term, as long as it's accurate.
Is that with an 'aitch' or a 'haitch'?
If you'll just spell it right, I don't care how you pronounce it 8) .

Hannah Joy
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #17

Post by BeHereNow »

hannahjoy: I can see how "pro-abortion" would be misleading. So is "pro-choice".
I realize an unborn child can't make a choice. Killing that child keeps him from ever having any chance to make any choice. That's not "pro-choice".
First, you have not shown that any child has been killed in an abortion. Please refrain from making assumptions not in evidence.

If one party can make a choice, and the other is not capable of that, why is it right to deny a choice to the one who is able? Can you think of another example where because one party is not capable of making a choice, the other party is denied any choice as well?
Also, if the legal process has given the right to choose to one party, how can it be wrong to call this position “pro-choice”?
These are not rhetorical questions. I would like to know your answer.

I need to know at what age you would agree an unborn child has the ability to freely choose to end its life. Would you agree for example that when the unborn child reaches the age of, say, 21, they should be free to go to their doctor and say “I realize now I would rather not be alive. Please help me end my life.”? At what age is this first possible?

You're welcome to coin third term, as long as it's accurate.
I see no need to coin a third term. I have shown we have a perfectly good and workable term and you have not shown I am incorrect. You have only expressed an opinion with no basis, Since the discussion is still open, you may get there yet. You may offer suggestions for a different term if you choose. You have that right.

Post Reply