Describe your particular position w/in that of "Pro-Life"

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarlisleMLH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CarlisleMLH

Guest
As a self-avowed Pro-Life poster, describe your particular position w/in that larger group.

**This particular thread is for self-avowed Pro-Life posters. **
If you are a self-avowed Pro-Choice poster, please look for the thread dedicated to Pro-Choice posters and post your comments there.

I am starting these 2 threads because I want to hear discussion from the 2 larger groups separately. I want to hear discussion on the differentiated positions w/in each group. I’m hoping posters will attempt to **list and/or define **their very particular position, whether that be an ultra-defined highly-personal viewpoint, or a previously defined position.

At the moment, I am aware only of the following positions which have become more-or-less recognizable labels for more-or-less political and/or religious platforms/ philosophies:

Atheists for Choice
Atheists for Life
Militant Feminists
Feminists
Feminists For Life
Men for Choice
Men for Life
Personally Pro-Life but don’t want it legislated
Pro-Life but for the Death Penalty
Pro-Life including against the Death Penalty

Given that people will tend to want to differentiate themselves from descriptors/ labels they find too generalized, especially when those labels are imposed on them by others, I sincerely want to hear from each poster as precisely as possible, and if necessary as personally as possible, their own description of their particular position.

But I’m not looking for arguments defending these positions.
At this point, I simply want to see the list we jointly compile of all the different positions of posters active on CAF.

I do apologize that my introduction to this thread is so wordy. It’s actually rather foreign and very difficult for me to be as precise as I want others to be!!! So I am attempting to adopt the language and style of what I find on these forums!!! If my way of doing so becomes laughable, well then go ahead and laugh! It is funny! It’s fine w/ me if I’ve provided you w/ some entertainment! :o But then please make a sincere contribution anyway!

In searching for humorous/refreshing threads I was directed to “Confessions of a Thread Killer.” I found it very effective for producing belly laughs! I invite all these “Thread Killers” to contribute to one or the other thread introduced here, but please choose only one! I do like a limited discussion, but please abstain from thread-killing gluttony! 😉
 
I’m not sure what label fits me (though I generally like the arguments of the “Feminists for Life”). But here’s my position:

I am uncertain just when ensoulment occurs–in secular terms, at just what point the embryo/fetus can be said to be a human person with all the rights and dignity appertaining thereto. However, I am certain that this happens long before birth–probably very early in the pregnancy, and possibly at conception. (My reasons for having some doubts about this are first of all that this is not the traditional view, and secondly that there seem to be some odd consequences to considering embryos to be human persons from the moment of conception, including the fact that an embryo can divide and become two after conception, which would mean that what had been one human being becomes two separate individuals.) Therefore, a just society will have laws banning abortion absolutely (defining abortion as the deliberate killing/destruction of the fetus–obviously there are some “double effect” cases where the child might need to be removed from the womb to save the mother’s life, but this would be done with every effort to save the child as well) after a point early in the pregnancy (the traditional forty days isn’t a bad benchmark, I think), and will tend to discourage and limit abortions even during that very early period.

I know that to many folks here this isn’t a true “prolife” position. But pragmatically I think we’d be doing well to have this position accepted within the broader society. The question of the status of the embryo immediately after conception is complex enough that I don’t think there will ever be a clear consensus on the subject, though i could be wrong. But everyone should be able to agree that late-term abortions are unqualified murder, and that given the disagreement on just when ensoulment occurs it is better to err on the side of protecting life.

Edwin
 
I am 100% Catholic Pro life, that is, I support the Church’s position on all issues that Rome has related to right to life. This includes the death penalty and attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person identified by the Second Vatican Council and declared to be directly related to abortion by Pope John Paul II (ex. torture, modern forms of slavery, etc.).

Where I am undoubtedly in the minority in this forum is two factors:
  1. I fully accept the Church’s absolute stance, including the 1902 declaration on ectopic pregnancies. Most people who claim that they are 100% pro-life still argue that some abortions are licit when given specific examples.
  2. I accept the Church’s teaching that secular law cannot permit abortion. As a Catholic, I am compelled to obey the Pope in this matter. But my own belief is that changes to secular law are the least effective way to reduce actual abortions and I have some migivings about codifying our absolute stance, at least now.
In this last, I am pretty sure I am not alone. In US Catholic hospitals about 50-90,000 abortive procedures occur each year. Secular society counts them as medical abortions, but the hospitals argue that the procedures do not constitute ‘direct’ abortions. So far, the Church has declined to express an opinion, but it is worth noting that in multiple countries with extremely high Catholic populations, most these procedures would be illegal, and bishops in those countries supported those laws.

If US Catholics and Catholic hospitals currently have difficulty with the full implications of our teachings on abortion, then US society as a whole certainly will. So I think that the Church is being very wise in showing some patience and tolerance. We are a predominantly Protestant culture with the resulting emphasis on self. That outlook will have to change before we are ready to accept, say, sterility as a common side effect of ectopic pregnancy as a matter of law without serious backlash.
 
Pro-life Catholic, against abortion, euthanasia, and contraception. Death penalty (IMO) is a separate discussion.
 
Spirithound said:
Pro-life Catholic, against abortion, euthanasia, and contraception. Death penalty (IMO) is a separate discussion.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to hijack the survey, but it was Pope John Paul II who tied the two together, not just in Evangelium Vitae (where murder, abortion, and euthanasia were declared to be infallable teachings), but in directions to the laity, like Christifideles Laici. Pope Benedict seems to have an equally broad view of right to life issues, having recently explained that climate change appears to be a very serious right to life issue effecting billions of people.

Peace
 
SoCalRC said:
I don’t want to hijack the survey, but it was Pope John Paul II who tied the two together, not just in Evangelium Vitae (where murder, abortion, and euthanasia were declared to be infallable teachings), but in directions to the laity, like Christifideles Laici. Pope Benedict seems to have an equally broad view of right to life issues, having recently explained that climate change appears to be a very serious right to life issue effecting billions of people.

Peace
Click to expand...
But Pope John Paul II acknowledges that there are some instances when executing a criminal is necessary for the safety of the community. This is done by a direct act. Neither an unborn baby nor an elderly/disabled person may be killed by a direct act.
 
Spirithound said:
But Pope John Paul II acknowledges that there are some instances when executing a criminal is necessary for the safety of the community. This is done by a direct act. Neither an unborn baby nor an elderly/disabled person may be killed by a direct act.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a theological difference, abortion, murder, and euthanasia are absolutes, the death penalty has the theoretical possibility of licit application, though the Church teaches that such cases are exceedingly rare, possible “non existant”. Nonetheless, they are related teachings, both manifestations of the inalienable rights of the human person.

My point was that, with regards to abortion (and end of life issues as well), most US Catholics have difficulty with the absolute nature of the teaching. Since even mentioning ectopic pregnancy I have gotten multiple PMs. Most certain that the choice of salpingectomy vs. salpingastomy makes everything ‘ok’, but that has never been an official opinion from the Church (in fact, it is rejected by the Church in some countries), and our treatment and detection of such pregancies, as well as the probable outcomes, has changed dramatically since it was first even proposed.

Secular society considers these abortions, but we do not want to. We might mostly accept the Church’s position, but when it gets to a really difficult siutaiton, like risking sterility or even death for a fetus that will never reach term, it is very, very tough, either for one’s self, or a loved one. Similarly, the line between death with dignity (the licit refusal of medical care) and suicide/euthanasia, is not crystal clear. Again, difficult and understandably emotional decisions.

Sorry, but at my age, I’ve come to the point where I am convinced the Church is right, but I’ve also seen enough of these difficult issues at the beginning and end of life to have nothing but compassion for everyone involved.

Peace
 
I am prolife meaning against abortion, euthanasia, contraception AND the death penalty. I am also against war and all means of killing outside self defense.
 
What I think on each issue and why:
Contraception: True contraception is prevention of sperm and egg finding each other. It’s not right, but preventing it legally would require far too much invasion of privacy. Schoolkids should be informed in their contraception classes (whatever it’s called now) that many people are against it and someof the reasons, and that preventing conception doesn’t prevent disease, and that sex exists biologically for conception.
Abortive pseudocontraception: Wrong but hard to prevent. Should be illegal, as it does kill someone. However, investigation of possible users should be extremely rare, to save what shreds of human dignity are left in this unprivate world we now live in. Rather, manufacturers should be prosecuted when it comes to light.
Abortion where mother’s life isn’t in danger: Wrong and criminal. Should be prosecuted as homicide in the case of the doctor, accessory in the case of the mother if she understood and consented freely, accessory in the case of everyone else who understood and freely consented. If the pregnancy was traumatic in any way that is to be taken into account as a significant mitigating factor but does not actually legalize the abortion.
The mother’s youth may be a mitigating factor as well.
Major medical trauma to the mother caused by the abortion or associated with it may be factored in and counted against the penalty on her, and shall be counted and added to the penalty on the doctor and assistants. Aborting the child of a woman or girl and decieving her as to the fact that it is the murder of her child and/or that it may harm her own body is also a crime and shall be added to the charges against a doctor who does so. Deceiving the mother as to the child’s development, sensations or consciousness is also fraud. Coercing anyone into an abortion is an additional charge against whoever coerces her.
Where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy: Morally it’s still wrong to abort for the same reason it’s wrong to throw someone off an overloaded lifeboat. It is however just as understandable as throwing someone off an overloaded lifeboat. That is, we all think we’d never do that, but a lot of people would weaken and do it when they were afraid.
Doctors should be legally required to search for a way to save the baby before suggesting or performing abortion under these circumstances. They should have to document that search in as much detail as any other attempt to find a way to save a patient’s life.
Conjoined twins who cannot both survive: Same as above sitation. Doctor must document detailed search for ways to save both twins.
Euthanasia where patient has requested it/assisted suicide: Wrong and still murder, though mitigated if patient applied extreme emotional or other pressure to get such assistance. Doctors and other personnel must document attempts to persuade patient to live. Means of suicide must be removed from patient.
Lethal neglect of terminal patients who want to live or who cannot communicate wishes: Murder. Flat out murder.
 
My abortion could have killed me. I think when abortion is outlawed anyone who goes through what I did should be seen as having served her time. However, a second abortion should be seen as a sign she hasn’t learned anything and should lead to some sort of penalty, unless she was coerced or in fear for her life, or mentally impaired etc.
The doctor has far more power to understand the procedure, and can stop it after it has begun and up to a point can even repair the damage to the baby. He has more responsibility. Also, there is no built-in punishment for him as there is for the mother. Therefore, the doctor should do time if convicted.
I had to take a walk after my last post because I have heard some stories about medical neglect that break my heart. People calling, all night, begging for some juice, dying because no one would bring any. A cook sneaking a diabetic patient some OJ when the people responsible for him said they didn’t want to give him fluids because he urinated too much. :eek: I’ve heard of people who can eat, communicate and even do other things being talked into a feeding tube to save someone else time, not given enough time to talk (it’s a big task to vocalize for somepeople and can take quite a while to get the air through the larynx), then charted “eats through tube, no communication” and this is used as an argument to let them die.:banghead: :crying:
I’m also against sterilization and think that sterilizing poor people without telling them or maing it a requirement for aid is a crime.
 
I’m 100% Catholic pro-life; I’m against abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and the death penalty.
 
Pro-life Catholic, anti-death penalty (though if I think too long about child rapists it tends to challenge my position on the latter)
 
What this person said:
I am [100%] prolife meaning against abortion, euthanasia, contraception AND the death penalty. I am also against war and all means of killing outside self defense.
Click to expand...
 
Catholic and totally opposed to the murder of Gods innocent children.
 
Feedmysheep said:
Pro-life Catholic, anti-death penalty (though if I think too long about child rapists it tends to challenge my position on the latter)
Click to expand...
That’s the test isn’t it? Standing by something when it costs us something. That’s something I find baffling about modern Evangelism, God’s will somehow always lines up perfectly with what a group already wants…

There are lots of issues with no villian at all, medical abortions, difficult end of life issues… If we didn’t feel tremendous empathy for all sides, we wouldn’t be answering Christ’s call to love our neighbors as ourselves.
 
100% pro-life. Absolutely pro Humanae Vitae. Opposed to euthanasia, and I support the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.

As the Church has stated, and contrary to what one member here has posted, there is nothing else as serious and killing an innocent child in the womb. Beating up a terrorist to find out where the bomb he planted is does not compare with the willful slaughter of innocent life.

The “seamless garment” concept of morality is nothing less than heresy and the poster who mentioned it has used it to justify abortion in posts on other threads. Frankly, I am shocked he claimed to be 100% pro-life. Apparently, he does not think lying is a sin either. Or perhaps he does not know about feature here to find all the posts a member makes.
 
Catholic, against all abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty to the same degree as the Church is (virtually no instance where it is necessary.) I feel that calling oneself “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty undermines the pro-life argument.

I believe in self-defense, as my life, or that of my loved ones, is equally as important as that of someone who may be intent on doing me harm.

I abhor war and subscribe to the “just war” concept.

With regard to end of life issues, I have given much thought to “extraordinary/ordinary” means. We are not bound to use every new technology to prolong life when there is no hope; we are, after all, meant for a life beyond this one! I believe, though, that ordinary means must be used, and that nourishment in some form must be provided to the end. (We went through this with my mother in law, who had a feeding tube for several years; when the end was near, continuing the usual “formula” that way was impossible, as digestion had nearly stopped, and nutrition via IV was given instead. I cannot conceive of denying hydration, and whatever nutrition is possible, to any patient.) I don’t have a problem with turning off a respirator; if we are so ill that we cannot breathe on our own, with no hope of recovery, it is perhaps time to go to God.

I understand that sometimes treatments and procedures (for cancer, ectopic pregnancies, etc.) must be employed to save a mother’s life that have the indirect effect of ending the life of a developing baby.

I guess that I pretty much support Catholic teaching, not that it isn’t sometimes difficult.
 
I feel that calling oneself “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty undermines the pro-life argument.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree Babies are innocent and criminals are scumbags who deserve what they get
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top