What does being "pro life" mean to you?

[Joab]

I think most The vast majority are opposed to murder, although what constitutes "murder" varies. Do you believe being pro life means being opposed to abortion, opposed to war, helping out some kid in a third world country from starving to death and/or helping his village with health concerns that would help keep them alive, or a combination of the three? When we hear the words "pro life" these days it seems to equate in many minds being opposed to abortion. I think being pro life should mean more than that, it should be being for the sanctity of all life, in this context human life primarily, and should really include all the above and even more. Of course being "pro life" certainly could include animal life, insect life, you name it life. What does being "pro life" mean to you? I think few people are really "pro death?"

 

[seasoned]

Treat everybody the way you would want to be treated, if given the choice. This covers womb to tomb.

 

[JDenver]

I know that when I was in the womb I wanted to be treated with respect and dignity.

 

[harlan]

It's a co-opted word, much like the word 'gay', and simply using it in a discussion effectively limits the discussion, and raises all kinds of red herrings.

I'm all for extending the right to continue breathing to all sentient beings already engaged in the act. The hard part is negotiating space, and cultural 'carrying capacity' for differing views and lifeways. Few people decry the 'roadkill' animals that die each year as a result of human stupidity, so I don't see the sense in getting upset about what is essentially human roadkill.

 

[CoryKS]

"Pro-life" means nothing outside the context of the abortion debate. It is a label that one side has chosen to cast themselves in the best possible light. "Pro-choice", too, is a label that the opposing side has adopted for marketing purposes but does not apply beyond the scope of the abortion debate (i.e., You're pro-choice? Really? May I choose to smoke?)

Outside the debate, it's meaningless. NOBODY is anti-life, which isn't to say that they won't kill when they feel it is necessary, such as defending their loved ones or engaging in war to defend their ideals.

 

[Bruno@MT]

First of all, I assume this is in the context of abortion.

I am pro life. Personally, I think that the default choice should be to carry children full term and then either raise them yourself or register them for adoption. This is what being 'pro life' means to me.

I am also pro choice, because in the end, it's not -my- choice to make. Who am I to tell someone else what she has to do with her body? I may or may not agree, but it doesn't matter what -I- think because it is not -my- choice to make.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am also pro choice, because in the end, it's not -my- choice to make. Who am I to tell someone else what she has to do with her body? I may or may not agree, but it doesn't matter what -I- think because it is not -my- choice to make.

Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?

 

[celtic_crippler]

You'd think the term would be self-explanatory wouldn't you?

Doesn't it stand to reason that if one is "pro-life" that they are most likely "anti-death"?

If that's the case, then one cannot claim to be "pro-life" if they advocate "death" in any way, especially if they are involved in committing some act that directly or even indirectly causes a "death."

That would mean eating no meats, killing no animals... just for starters. LOL

I know it's a tad extreme, but I really get tired of people committing murder and exhibiting other undersirable behavior under the banner of "pro-life"

 

[harlan]

Well, to continue with the analogy: if that bystander has a part of their body in that woman...I don't have a problem with her killing it/him.

A woman's body containing an inseminated egg can't be compared to two people standing next to each other at a bus stop.

Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?

As a female, perhaps I have an extended understanding of the word 'rape'. A violation of one's body and personal space. An unwanted fetus is just that...a violation of one's person. The whole abortion debate isn't about 'saving life'. It's about control over women through the misuse of law - to 'punish' women in the guise of emotional appeals of 'protecting' the innocent.

 

[Bruno@MT]

That is a valid remark of course. Imo the difference is that people (kids, adults, elderly) are able to exist independently of oneanother.
A fetus however is not. It is a parasite to the female body during the pregnancy.

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is a very far reaching decision, and I think it should never be taken lightly. I think it is usually the worst possible decision, and if done at all it should be done in the first trimester, and if at all possible as soon as the pregnancy is known, before there is anything resembling a brain.

I wholeheartedly agree that 3d trimester abortions are equivalent to a killing. But I also acknowledge that later term abortions are virtually always caused by medical reasons. I don't think anyone waits until their 3d term before realizing 'well, on second thought...'

The late term abortions that is done for 'frivolous' reasons is so low that it would be groslly unfair to denounce abortions as evil, because early term there are no brainwaves yet, and later term there are good medical reasons (danger to the woman) in the majority of the cases.
That said, every abortion is a tragedy, but because of the reasons I mentioned, I think it should be the woman's decision.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Too many people claim pro life.... but then say... but I am pro death penalty....

pro life to me is all or nothing... any in between is hypocritical..
now you can believe life start from inception and not from birth and believe that justified homicide as in the death penalty is okay... but thats not pro life.

 

[Bruno@MT]

As a female, perhaps I have an extended understanding of the word 'rape'. A violation of one's body and personal space. An unwanted fetus is just that...a violation of one's person.

As for why the husband should have no casting vote: rape happens in marriage as well. Men should not be able to force women to have their baby.

The whole abortion debate isn't about 'saving life'. It's about control over women through the misuse of law - to 'punish' women in the guise of emotional appeals of 'protecting' the innocent.

I think It was George Carlin who once said 'When people defend the right to live, they mean their right to tell you how to live your life'

Of course a one-liner is rarely an accurate representation of an argument. It is no different in this case, but it has some merit, and imo it highlights the main pillar of the argument both ways.

 

[harlan]

Darn right.

For the record, I had a late 2nd trimester abortion. It died inside...and it had to be done. I'll never forget, or forgive, the people lined up between me and the hospital. Sanctimonious, aggressive, sign pushing *&@#...

It was my right. Nevermind the 'free pass', that it was a medical emergency. Those people pushing their views on me, and every other poor woman finding herself there that day, for whatever personal reasons brought them so low.

I could have used a hug and cup of coffee. Instead, I got bigoted anger.

It's every woman's right.

 

[MJS]

IMHO, I don't think that people should run out and abort a kid for the sake of it. However, depending on the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort, then I see nothing wrong with it, and IMO, that is the mothers choice and nobody should concern themselves with it. For example...if a female was the victim of a rape and bacame pregnant, and did not want to give birth to this child, then she should have the right to an abortion. Now, some will say that there is no need to kill the child and she could simply put it up for adoption. Sure, thats an option, but as I said, given the nature of the birth to begin with, perhaps her right to not want to give birth to a child that was the product of a rape, should be respected.

 

[geezer]

Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?

Their right to kill a bystander? Not if it affects me too, Bill. I mean, am I going to be deafened by the sound of the gunshot or get splattered with blood? And who's going to clean up the mess. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on that!


But seriously, It's pretty hard to find a middle ground on the abortion issue. Either you believe that human life begins at conception and is sacred and inviolable from that moment on, or you don't. And, even if most of us can agree that abortion is undesirable, we can't seem to come together to implement common sense programs to help provide women on both sides of the issue with alternatives to abortion. I mean programs to provide all pregnant women with paid prenatal care, paid maternity leave, cover the medical costs of childbirth, and to assist with childcare. And all day pre-school in all states. That's if they keep the child, and offer extended counseling if they don't. It would cost a lot, but it might reduce the actual numbers of abortions. Or you can just outlaw abortion and drive distraught young women to go to criminal "back alley" abortionists.

Ironically, many of those on the conservative, "pro-life" side favor outlawing abortion and oppose costly programs since they don't want to spend tax dollars on what they see as "creeping socialism"... even if it might reduce the number of abortions. And, of course they have a point too. Any such programs carry a price tag and the potential for abuse. Remember "octomom"?

So folks, where's the common ground?

 

[JDenver]

Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?

I've always wanted to ask this, and I ask it with great sincerity.

How do you feel about masturbation? What I mean is, and I'm genuine in hoping to hear your point of view, what makes the fetus, which for weeks resembles a glob of cells and then a fishy little thing, what makes that much different than your sperm? If I masturbate, aren't I killing sperm? I guess one could say that the marriage of sperm to egg is a big difference, but physically I'm not sure I understand so I hope to learn something.

thanks.

Oh, and I came across something interesting in ancient Chinese philosophy which outlined how life = breath. That would suggest that life only begins upon birth, I think! I'd be curious to hear anyone's insight on that.

 

[MBuzzy]

I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one. Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion. They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights. If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.

Personally, if I were to label myself, it would be "pro-choice." It is the woman's perogative what she does with her body. Although I would caveat that there are times and situations where abortion is appropriate and where it is not. Abortion is not an "irresponsibility insurance policy." If the abortion is simply the result of irresponsibility or a form of birth control...I'm not behind that. If it is being done for medical reasons, for well reasoned personal reasons, or because the mother simply realizes that she does not have the means to raise the child, I am for it. It is better to have an abortion than a child who may either spend its life in the adoption system or not be cared for by its parents.

I recently had a family encounter with this, which strengthened my opinion...We lost our baby when my wife was 12 weeks pregnant, i.e. a "natural" abortion or miscarriage. But in this situation, my wife needed to have what amounts to an abortion to remove the dead fetus. It would have been a medical risk if she did not have it removed. I am concerned that in the presence of such legislation that is "anti-abortion," situations like this would be much more of a problem than they need to be. And I agree, like Harlan, it was a hard enough time without being harrassed by anti-abortion nut jobs picketing and spewing anger and hatred.

 

[CoryKS]

I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one. Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion. They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights. If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.

I see the disconnect too, and there's a corresponding disconnect on the part of liberals who think the government shouldn't interfere with our lives but should be there to provide resources if we screw up on our own.

The only consistent pattern I've been able to find is this:

"Conservatives" tend to favor to a policy of Prevention, where laws are enacted that forbid certain acts or behaviors, and those who circumvent those laws are left to deal with the consequences themselves.

"Liberals" tend to favor a policy of Alleviation, where the government does not enforce behavioral controls but requires that all citizens participate financially in mitigating the consequences of other peoples actions.

Kinda makes sense from that perspective. To me, at least. Everybody wants some form of government interference, it's just a question of when and how.

 

[MBuzzy]

I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one. Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion. They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights. If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.

I am aware of the religious background, obviously, and the belief some hold that abortion is murder....I'm wondering if there is any reasoning beyond that? This amounts to LARGE ethical gray area, so it is essentially imposing your ethical views upon others.

I personally look at this in a different light from murder or robbery, but I know that others don't.

 

[Big Don]

Pro-life means anti-elective abortion. Period. Rape/incest doesn't apply, nor does danger to the life of the mother, gee, if it endangers the life of the mother, that would make it a child, wouldn't it?