"Hard" pro-life vs. "Soft" pro-life?

[Benjinho]

I was thinking about the life/choice arguments going around lately due to the new Georgia and Alabama laws, but I’ve come to recognize there are 2 different types of pro-lifers.

1. The “hard” pro-lifers who believe in laws outlawing abortion and persuade others not to have abortions.
2. The “soft” pro-lifers who may say they are pro-choice but in reality would never get an abortion themselves, view abortion as an inherent moral wrong and also attempt to persuade others not to have abortions, but don’t believe there should be laws banning the practice in absolutely all cases.

The church does hold that an unborn baby dying as a result of treating the mother for a life threatening disease is actually morally permissible, provided the primary goal isn’t the death of the baby. Given this, do you think some of the “pro choice” people are actually “softer” pro-life people, or do you see it as black and white?

 

[EZweber]

Some of them probably are, but their position makes even less sense than the pro choice one.

 

[Aquinas11]

The “soft” pro-lifers who may say they are pro-choice but in reality would never get an abortion themselves, view abortion as an inherent moral wrong and also attempt to persuade others not to have abortions, but don’t believe there should be laws banning the practice in absolutely all cases.

No, all pro lifers agree if mothers life is in jeopardy so this category doesn’t exist.

 

[phil19034]

I do think there are some “soft pro-lifers” (btw - I don’t like this term) who do NOT properly understand the “life of the mother” situation and if they properly understood would become pro-life.

HOWEVER, with that said, I also know there are many pro-choicers who say “only for life of the mother” are OK with an abortion if a mother was told that she had a CHANCE of the pregnancy being dangerous.

So there is a difference & I would argue that most of the people who are pro-choice and say they are only ok with abortion for the life of the mother literally mean abortion. Not where the child indirectly dies as part of an early c-section or procedure that attempts to save the mother’s life.

 

[Sbee0]

I was thinking about the life/choice arguments going around lately due to the new Georgia and Alabama laws, but I’ve come to recognize there are 2 different types of pro-lifers.

1. The “hard” pro-lifers who believe in laws outlawing abortion and persuade others not to have abortions.
2. The “soft” pro-lifers who may say they are pro-choice but in reality would never get an abortion themselves, view abortion as an inherent moral wrong and also attempt to persuade others not to have abortions, but don’t believe there should be laws banning the practice in absolutely all cases.

The church does hold that an unborn baby dying as a result of treating the mother for a life threatening disease is actually morally permissible, provided the primary goal isn’t the death of the baby. Given this, do you think some of the “pro choice” people are actually “softer” pro-life people, or do you see it as black and white?

2 describes a pro choicer as the term meant it -
and a very large percentage of them.

A soft pro lifer to me is someone against abortion but with caveats (incest, etc). Like Presidents Trump and GW Bush.

 

[Brendea]

I’ve been in the position before where both my life was on the line during pregnancy and that of my baby twice now and had a huge decision to make beacuse of this I’ve lost a son. Beacuse of this I’m here to watch my other children grow up

It’s also not an easy decision for a mother to make.

And no matter what way a mother choses she always wonders if she made the right decision.
If the baby dies the mother feels guilt the rest of her life
And if the baby lives born at 23 weeks after an emergency c section the mother feels guilty for putting her baby through that ordeal

And if the mother chooses to potentially die with her unborn baby she is never going to be able to watch her beautiful daughter grow up.

I do not believe in abortion in cases of rape
I do not believe in abortion in any circumstance
However I believe that if there is a severe medical complication in a pregnancy and if it’s a life or death emergency for mother or baby or both of there lives then an emergency c section or induced labour is ok. Provided the primary outcome is to not let either one of them die.

I see the second time I was put in this position the choice i mad was completly selfish. Deep down I knew my baby would not survive at 17 weeks however I had 2 children to look after 1 who was conceived during rape the other that was born at 23 weeks who was sick and on oxygen who needed heart surgery etc from the first time I had to make the right decision.

If that makes me a soft pro lifer it doesn’t actually bother me. Life is life but why should 2 lives die when there is a small chance one or both can survive

 

[thistle]

I was thinking about the life/choice arguments going around lately due to the new Georgia and Alabama laws, but I’ve come to recognize there are 2 different types of pro-lifers.

1. The “hard” pro-lifers who believe in laws outlawing abortion and persuade others not to have abortions.
2. The “soft” pro-lifers who may say they are pro-choice but in reality would never get an abortion themselves, view abortion as an inherent moral wrong and also attempt to persuade others not to have abortions, but don’t believe there should be laws banning the practice in absolutely all cases.

The church does hold that an unborn baby dying as a result of treating the mother for a life threatening disease is actually morally permissible, provided the primary goal isn’t the death of the baby. Given this, do you think some of the “pro choice” people are actually “softer” pro-life people, or do you see it as black and white?

You are either pro-life or not. There is no hard or soft.

 

[Joe_5859]

2 describes a pro choicer as the term meant it -
and a very large percentage of them.

Right. That’s why the term “pro-choice” was adopted in the first place rather than “pro-abortion.”

 

[Bruised_Reed]

You are either pro-life or not. There is no hard or soft

This. A friend who has described herself as pro-life as long as I’ve known her has changed her stance; still pro-life in the sense she wouldn’t have an abortion but won’t interfere with the rights of others. That is pro-choice. And I said so. Things are strained now but pro-life means something and if you are pro-choice, own it.