Definition of the term "pro-life"

[ribozyme]

What does the term “pro-life” mean?

I ask this because there was a topic on a different online forum where someone proposed to use that word outside of its original context.

Personally, I could misconstrue the definition in a way that could allow myself to be deemed “pro-life” and I have attempted to do so on this forum a while ago.

From a Catholic perspective, discuss the meaning of that term… Also how does politics influence the connotation and interpretation of the term “pro-life”?

 

[Em_in_FL]

The term “pro-life” is usually associated with the abortion issue (in the public/political arena)…

However, the Church teaches about many “life issues” including (but not limited to) abortion, contraception, cloning, capital punishment, euthanasia, health issues, and natural family planning.

Here’s a good link to the catechism discussing many of these “life issues”…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

 

[melensdad]

The term “pro-life” is usually associated with the abortion issue (in the public/political arena)…

However, the Church teaches about many “life issues” including (but not limited to) abortion, contraception, cloning, capital punishment, euthanasia, health issues, and natural family planning.

Here’s a good link to the catechism discussing many of these “life issues”…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

As I understand it the Church divides up many common issues into LIFE and SOCIAL JUSTICE issues.

Life Issues, which are considered non-negotiable issues by the Church, the 5 issues critical to the church are:

• Abortion (this includes contraception, etc)
• Euthanasia
• Human Cloning
• Embryonic Stem Cell Research
• Gay Marriage (not to be mistaken as hatred of gays)

Social Justice issues, which are of lower importance and which are open to reasonable debate as to HOW to best accomplish the goals would include, but certainly not be limited to:

• Criminal Punishment/Justice
• Health & Social Charity Issues
• Worker Justice, Economic Justice
• Property Rights

 

[dmelosi]

The meaning of pro-life for many has changed so that people feel less guilty about supporting a pro abortion candidate.

Melensdad describes the original meaning of pro-life until those pro-abortionists have tried to change it because of guilty feelings.

You cannot be pro-life and for abortion.

What does the term “pro-life” mean?

I ask this because there was a topic on a different online forum where someone proposed to use that word outside of its original context.

Personally, I could misconstrue the definition in a way that could allow myself to be deemed “pro-life” and I have attempted to do so on this forum a while ago.

From a Catholic perspective, discuss the meaning of that term… Also how does politics influence the connotation and interpretation of the term “pro-life”?

 

[Byzcat]

Hmm…

A lot of people, especially on the “Christian” right, define pro-life strictly in terms of being anti-abortion, some expand it to being anti-euthanasia, and it stops there.

The Catholic Church has a much more expansive definition, including social justice issues such as workers’ rights, health care, assistance for the poor, etc., as well as contraception and gay marriage, but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough.

I consider the unjust, illegal war in Iraq to be a “life issue”. You cannot support the invasion and occupation of an oil-rich country, carried out on false pretenses of “fighting terrorism” killing innocent civilians in their thousands solely to boost the profits of the oil companies, not to mention the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, most of whom are in no way terrorists, and call yourself “pro-life”.

 

[bankerdavid]

Hmm…

A lot of people, especially on the “Christian” right, define pro-life strictly in terms of being anti-abortion, some expand it to being anti-euthanasia, and it stops there.

The Catholic Church has a much more expansive definition, including social justice issues such as workers’ rights, health care, assistance for the poor, etc., as well as contraception and gay marriage, but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough.
\quote]
Pro-life refers to the taking of innocent life-from those who have no say in the matter. Babies, and the elderly. “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.”

I consider the unjust, illegal war in Iraq to be a “life issue”. You cannot support the invasion and occupation of an oil-rich country, carried out on false pretenses of “fighting terrorism” killing innocent civilians in their thousands solely to boost the profits of the oil companies, not to mention the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, most of whom are in no way terrorists, and call yourself “pro-life”.

 

[dmelosi]

I would bet that you support the pro death candidates as well.

Hmm…

A lot of people, especially on the “Christian” right, define pro-life strictly in terms of being anti-abortion, some expand it to being anti-euthanasia, and it stops there.

The Catholic Church has a much more expansive definition, including social justice issues such as workers’ rights, health care, assistance for the poor, etc., as well as contraception and gay marriage, but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough.

I consider the unjust, illegal war in Iraq to be a “life issue”. You cannot support the invasion and occupation of an oil-rich country, carried out on false pretenses of “fighting terrorism” killing innocent civilians in their thousands solely to boost the profits of the oil companies, not to mention the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, most of whom are in no way terrorists, and call yourself “pro-life”.

 

[melensdad]

Hmm…

A lot of people, especially on the “Christian” right, define pro-life strictly in terms of being anti-abortion, some expand it to being anti-euthanasia, and it stops there.

**The Catholic Church has a much more expansive definition, including social justice issues such as workers’ rights, health care, assistance for the poor, etc., **as well as contraception and gay marriage, but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough.

The first part of what you wrote is correct, but I’m sorry to tell you much of what you wrote is wrong. The Catholic Church does not include ‘social justice’ issues as ‘life issues’ and in fact, teaches against lumping those things into the same category. You can take a look at the Faithful Citizenship document from the USCCB as evidence of this.

The 5 points I wrote above are in many Church documents as “life” issues for the Church, again they are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage, and Human Cloning and all their associated sub-topics are the “life” issues that are consistently written about in various documents.

I consider the unjust, illegal war in Iraq to be a “life issue”. You cannot support the invasion and** occupation** of an oil-rich country, carried out on false pretenses of “fighting terrorism” killing innocent civilians in their thousands solely to boost the profits of the oil companies, not to mention the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, most of whom are in no way terrorists, and call yourself “pro-life”.

What you personally consider to be a life issue and what the Roman Catholic Church considers to be a life issue may well be two different things. Interesting that Pope JP II opposed going to war, but also said now that we have invaded we must stay until there is a new stable government. Also, it is interesting to note that our current Pope B XVI echoed the same message. Neither supported going into Iraq, both stated that we must stay there until we fix it. Both of these statements have been linked here on CAF several times and are well known.

By the way, you make some wild allegations about GITMO and the reason for the invasion. Do you have any credible evidence to support these statements?

 

[mary_bobo]

Hmm…

A lot of people, especially on the “Christian” right, define pro-life strictly in terms of being anti-abortion, some expand it to being anti-euthanasia, and it stops there.

The Catholic Church has a much more expansive definition, including social justice issues such as workers’ rights, health care, assistance for the poor, etc., as well as contraception and gay marriage, but IMO, it doesn’t go far enough.

I consider the unjust, illegal war in Iraq to be a “life issue”. You cannot support the invasion and occupation of an oil-rich country, carried out on false pretenses of “fighting terrorism” killing innocent civilians in their thousands solely to boost the profits of the oil companies, not to mention the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, most of whom are in no way terrorists, and call yourself “pro-life”.

Please check forum rules on charity. And the oil in Iraq has not helped us to this point. But it is and will support the people of Iraq. The pretenses under which we went into Iraq PROVED to be false, but even the Clinton administration went along with the war. Check statements by President Clinton at that time. I would like to understand your sentiments, but I do not see how health care, and worker’s rights and helping the poor have anything to do with the five non-negotiables.

 

[seekerz]

Pro-life, for me, means not only the big “life or death” issues such as abortion, euthanasia, war and the death penalty, but any issue that impacts on the basic dignity of human life such as oppression, exploitation, human trafficking and slavery (to name a few).

 

[Byzcat]

The first part of what you wrote is correct, but I’m sorry to tell you much of what you wrote is wrong. The Catholic Church does not include ‘social justice’ issues as ‘life issues’ and in fact, teaches against lumping those things into the same category. You can take a look at the Faithful Citizenship document from the USCCB as evidence of this.

The 5 points I wrote above are in many Church documents as “life” issues for the Church, again they are Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage, and Human Cloning and all their associated sub-topics are the “life” issues that are consistently written about in various documents.

What you personally consider to be a life issue and what the Roman Catholic Church considers to be a life issue may well be two different things. Interesting that Pope JP II opposed going to war, but also said now that we have invaded we must stay until there is a new stable government. Also, it is interesting to note that our current Pope B XVI echoed the same message. Neither supported going into Iraq, both stated that we must stay there until we fix it. Both of these statements have been linked here on CAF several times and are well known.

Sorry, I haven’t seen the links. I don’t read and post extensively.

By the way, you make some wild allegations about GITMO and the reason for the invasion. Do you have any credible evidence to support these statements?

Not so wild. I learned most of this by watching the news, but since you asked…

thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm

abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm

slate.com/id/2136422/

 

[Byzcat]

Please check forum rules on charity. And the oil in Iraq has not helped us to this point. But it is and will support the people of Iraq. The pretenses under which we went into Iraq PROVED to be false, but even the Clinton administration went along with the war. Check statements by President Clinton at that time. I would like to understand your sentiments, but I do not see how health care, and worker’s rights and helping the poor have anything to do with the five non-negotiables.

Well…

Gay marriage, stem cell research and human cloning, not a lot.

Abortion, everything. The “pro-choice” crowd does have a legitimate point when they accuse us of wanting to “compel” women to bear children, but do not care about what happens to the children after they’re born. I was actually violently pro-choice before I came home to the Church, and this was actually one of the arguments I bought into.

The number one reason women have abortions is because they don’t think they can support the child. We live in a country where workers’ wages are not keeping pace with the increase in the cost of living, and jobs are being shipped overseas where workers’ rights are virtually nonexistant solely to boost the profits of already profitable corporations, and upwards of 45 million people have no health insurance.

In a situation like that, a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant is much more likely to choose to abort than if she (or the father) had stable, gainful employment and access to health care.

I think the biggest problem with the abortion issue is that many of us are only looking at half the equation- the right of a human being to live. We tend not to look at the issues of how is this child to be adequately supported and cared for after it is born. Yes, adoption is always an option, but it is very difficult for a woman to give up her baby after it is born, and for many abortion is an emotionally easier choice.

There is a perception among the pro-aborts that pro-lifers want to force women who become pregnant to bear their children as punishment for their sin of illicit sex, and failing to address issues that negatively impact the ability to support their children once born is just giving them ammunition.

In another thread, I said that we should give women no excuses. Make sure mothers will have the best of all possible chances of supporting their children before we tell them that, no, they do not have the right to kill their unborn babies.

Then we have higher moral ground to stand on when debating the radical feminists on a woman’s “choice” “right to control her body” (as if she wasn’t in control of her body when she made the choice that resulted in her becoming pregnant in the first place).

 

[puzzleannie]

specifically as used by those engaged in fighting the culture of death in America, specifically the Roe v Wade and subsequent SC decisions that struck down state laws against abortion, the term pro-life refers to the position that the US Constitution specifically protects the right to life and that laws in the US must be framed in terms of the actual constitutional rights, not in ephemeral non-specific ideas like “privacy” that were used by the justices to defend their majority opinion. The term “right to life” obviously refers to the same stance.

 

[melensdad]

Well…

Gay marriage, stem cell research and human cloning, not a lot.

Sorry, I do not understand? What do you mean? These are GRAVE and SERIOUS issues according to our Church, we are not supposed to even vote for politicians who support these issues.

Abortion, everything. The “pro-choice” crowd does have a legitimate point when they accuse us of wanting to “compel” women to bear children, but do not care about what happens to the children after they’re born. I was actually violently pro-choice before I came home to the Church, and this was actually one of the arguments I bought into.

The number one reason women have abortions is because they don’t think they can support the child. We live in a country where workers’ wages are not keeping pace with the increase in the cost of living, and jobs are being shipped overseas where workers’ rights are virtually nonexistant solely to boost the profits of already profitable corporations, and upwards of 45 million people have no health insurance.

In a situation like that, a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant is much more likely to choose to abort than if she (or the father) had stable, gainful employment and access to health care.

I know some of those 45 million, some choose not to buy employer supported insurance because they’d rather have 250 channels on cable TV and spend the weekend drinking beer. SERIOUSLY. But while that is only SOME, I also know SOME who can’t afford it.

Sorry, I haven’t seen the links. I don’t read and post extensively.

The fact that you have not seen them does not discount them. In fact you are stating things that are in contradiction with the Church teaching.

Not so wild. I learned most of this by watching the news, but since you asked…

thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm
abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm
slate.com/id/2136422/

I asked for credible sources. You provided 1 story and 3 editorials. Editorials, by definition are OPINIONS of the author, not hard news. 1 story does not make it so. I can site a dozen in opposition, and a few dozen opposing editorials. None of yours, and none of mine will be considered “LIFE” issues by the church, all will be considered “SOCIAL JUSTICE” issues, which are of lesser importance.

 

[Byzcat]

Sorry, I do not understand? What do you mean? These are GRAVE and SERIOUS issues according to our Church, we are not supposed to even vote for politicians who support these issues.

First, the question was, what do issues of aiding the poor, justice for workers, and health care have to do with life issues. The issues I mentioned have nothing to do with gay marriage, stem cell research. I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t consider them grave and serious. I only said that poverty, worker justice and health care have nothing to do with them. I really really don’t like it a lot when people read things I didn’t say into my posts. And I am seriously considering not voting in '08, because the Democrats, who are on the right side of the social justice issues, are dead wrong on the life issues, and the Republicans, who are on the right side on the life issues, couldn’t care less about social justice. And, BTW, they take a wide stance on family values. I generally vote Democratic, because I feel that people who are not trapped in poverty and have access to health care will be less likely to choose abortion when they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. But, when legalizing gay marriage was floated as a referendum here in Nevada, I voted “no”. I’m seriously getting to the point where there is no candidate that my conscience will allow me to vote for.

I know some of those 45 million, some choose not to buy employer supported insurance because they’d rather have 250 channels on cable TV and spend the weekend drinking beer. SERIOUSLY. But while that is only SOME, I also know SOME who can’t afford it.

And if you’re one of those some who genuinely can’t afford it, and you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant… I suspect that the ones who choose 250 cable channels and beer over health insurance are in the minority.

The fact that you have not seen them does not discount them. In fact you are stating things that are in contradiction with the Church teaching.

So, you need to be harsh with me because I haven’t spent enough time perusing the board that I haven’t run onto the links? You are saying that I am discounting Church teaching if I simply state that I haven’t read the linked documents? There’s that reading into my posts things I didn’t say again. If I am in violation of Church teaching, then obviously I need to rethink my position. But you don’t need to accuse me of discounting the teachings simply because I haven’t read the documents.

I asked for credible sources. You provided 1 story and 3 editorials. Editorials, by definition are OPINIONS of the author, not hard news. 1 story does not make it so. I can site a dozen in opposition, and a few dozen opposing editorials.

Are you saying that the facts the editorial writers based their opinions on are false, that the writers just made them up? Sorry, I don’t recall having used Fox News as a source.

None of yours, and none of mine will be considered “LIFE” issues by the church, all will be considered “SOCIAL JUSTICE” issues, which are of lesser importance.

But, the thing is, you can’t separate life issues from social justice issues. You have to look at both sides of the equation. Why do women have abortions? Sure, there are some who simply decide after they become pregnant that they don’t want the child, but they are in the minority. Most of them are in highly unstable economic situations, especially if the fathers of their children do not want the children, and fear that they will not be able to adequately care for their children is a big factor in the decision to abort.

 

[Byzcat]

One more thing.

I don’t think I have been clear enough on this issue- I do not believe that a woman has, or should have, a right to an abortion. I guess I’m just pragmatic about the issue.

I don’t think that we can persuade the world at large that abortion should not be legal until we can show them that yes, we do care about what happens to these children after they’re born, and that our interest in stopping abortion is because we believe in the inherent value and dignity of human life, not because we want to punish sinners by forcing them to bear children.

Although, how anyone can view a child as punishment is beyond me.

 

[melensdad]

First, the question was, what do issues of aiding the poor, justice for workers, and health care have to do with life issues. The issues I mentioned have nothing to do with gay marriage, stem cell research. I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t consider them grave and serious. I only said that poverty, worker justice and health care have nothing to do with them. I really really don’t like it a lot when people read things I didn’t say into my posts. And I am seriously considering not voting in '08, because the Democrats, who are on the right side of the social justice issues, are dead wrong on the life issues, and the Republicans, who are on the right side on the life issues, couldn’t care less about social justice. And, BTW, they take a wide stance on family values. I generally vote Democratic, because I feel that people who are not trapped in poverty and have access to health care will be less likely to choose abortion when they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. But, when legalizing gay marriage was floated as a referendum here in Nevada, I voted “no”. I’m seriously getting to the point where there is no candidate that my conscience will allow me to vote for. . .
So, you need to be harsh with me because I haven’t spent enough time perusing the board . . .
I don’t recall having used Fox News as a source. . .
you can’t separate life issues from social justice issues.

First, I’m sorry if you think I am harsh, its not my intent. I type fast, am blunt and apparently harsh. But you have me wrong, I don’t watch FOX news, I can easily separate life issues from social justice issues because I really try to follow the teaching of the church, and either you or I totally misunderstand the ‘first question’ because the question is what is Pro-Life. Pro-Life is related to the 5 non-negotiables, not to social issues. It has everything to do with embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. So perhaps we simply do not understand each other.

BTW, regarding social issues, you state that the GOP does not care about social justice issues. You are wrong. They do care, but they care in a way that you disagree with. It does not make it less valid, it just makes it something you don’t agree with. There are many members of our faith, many priests and bishops, on both sides of the political aisle. We are the universal church and there is room for honest disagreement on social issues. It is interesting that many Church Food Pantries and Church sponsored shelters do “means” testing and often have qualifications and requirements that must be met, this is not very different than many of the proposals of the GOP, yet you find the GOP does not care. I believe both parties have major faults, but I try to look for multiple sides of issues.

Again, sorry of you think I am harsh, it is not my intent

 

[Byzcat]

melensdad, I think I owe you this.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/60minutes/main691602.shtml

All hard news. Not editorials. Straight news stories.

Note on the first- there is some disagreement between the State Department and the military on what should be done with Iraq’s oil. I’ll leave you to peruse www.gregpalast.com for more.

I still maintain that you can’t separate social justice issues from the abortion issue. There is too much of one feeding into the other to be able to separate them. Also, I don’t think that we can claim the moral high ground on abortion unless we are willing to demonstrate that we are willing to help care for the children once born. Eliminate economic instability as a reason for abortion, then we can take the radical feminists on over the “women’s rights/control over their own bodies” issue.

Which they can’t win.

 

[Byzcat]

And rereading my post, I realize I was a bit fuzzy, and easy to misunderstand.

OK, so…

Social justice issues such as poverty, worker’s rights and health care have nothing to do with stem cell research and gay marriage. They have everything to do with abortion…

and so on.

 

[ribozyme]

melensdad, I think I owe you this.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/60minutes/main691602.shtml

All hard news. Not editorials. Straight news stories.

Note on the first- there is some disagreement between the State Department and the military on what should be done with Iraq’s oil. I’ll leave you to peruse www.gregpalast.com for more.

I still maintain that you can’t separate social justice issues from the abortion issue. There is too much of one feeding into the other to be able to separate them. Also, I don’t think that we can claim the moral high ground on abortion unless we are willing to demonstrate that we are willing to help care for the children once born. Eliminate economic instability as a reason for abortion, then we can take the radical feminists on over the “women’s rights/control over their own bodies” issue.

Which they can’t win.

Although I support abortion rights now, I do agree with your position. As one who has some interest in this subject, most of the arguments advanced by the pro-abortion advocates are centered on the potential quality of life of the fetus (includes some of Singer’s arguments). Well, quality of life ethics are a charactistic of a utilitarian framework in contrast to Catholicism, and I am glad you are able to comprehend that. You should know your enemies and I am glad you have (perhaps assiduously) done your homework.