Is "pro-life" an accurate term?

[vladdy]

Most people and organizations I know who consider themselves to be pro-life or present themselves that way are pro-life in the sense that they oppose chemical contraception (which may kill babies), abortion (which does kill babies), euthanasia (which kills the elderly and people who are seen as unable to live) and stem cell research (where if I am not mistaken cells from aborted babies are used for research).

I have been on many pro-life sites, and they played a role in helping sway my view against oral contraception. I laer crosschecked many of their claims on other medical sites, and many were proven true. I am grateful to them for that.

However, here is a problem I have.

None of these pro-life sites I have visited also denounce capital punishment (which kills people who society decides are irredeemable or too dangerous to be allowed to live), war (which statistically kills far more noncombatants than combatants), poverty (which contributes to death from disease, hunger, violence), hunger, lack of access to free healthcare (which means some people cannot afford to get treatment and may therefore risk their health and later die), free trade deals (that contribute to poverty in developing countries) and our border enforcement policy with Mexico which forces desperate people looking for work to go into the desert and causes hundreds each year to die a horrendous death.

By not advocating and working against these things, the pro-life groups are not really concerned about all or even most life issues, but only a select few of them. They are not defending life from conception to natural death. They defend life before birth and they defend life just before it ends. For the most part, they are not active at all in defending life of people in between.

I would say it is more accurate to use a term like “anti-abortion” or “anti euthanasia” or “anti stem cell research” or “anti contraceptives”, or make a really long sentence like “anti contraceptives/abortion/stem cell research/euthanasia”. But using the term “pro-life” to describe people and organizations that really aren’t is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[tbcrawford]

Hi vladdy
I like and agree with your post very much.I have been saying this for a very long time.You have explained the case far better than I could and I thankyou for that.
I would say many American catholics who call themselves pro life are in actual fact only anti abortion and not fully pro life.

I suspect you will get many posts disagreeing with you but I agree with you and well done for highlighting this.
God bless

 

[1ke]

None of these pro-life sites I have visited also denounce capital punishment (which kills people who society decides are irredeemable or too dangerous to be allowed to live), war (which statistically kills far more noncombatants than combatants),

There are many rooms in the Father’s house.

I don’t believe you can equate the fact that various pro-life groups may or may not focus on capital punishment with an endorsement of capital punishment.

The Catholic Church, particularly, has strong language in its teaching regarding the death penalty.

However, one must also be careful to distinguish intrinsically evil acts-- among which are abortion and euthanasia-- from those that are not: death penalty and just war. Criminals and unjust aggressors are not innocent, and just action against them can be taken. What consitutues just action can and does vary depending upon the situation. Again, defense against unjust aggressors is not intrinsically immoral.

poverty (which contributes to death from disease, hunger, violence), hunger, lack of access to free healthcare (which means some people cannot afford to get treatment and may therefore risk their health and later die), free trade deals (that contribute to poverty in developing countries) and our border enforcement policy with Mexico which forces desperate people looking for work to go into the desert and causes hundreds each year to die a horrendous death.

Life issues-- those involving the direct taking of human life-- are a subset of the justice we owe to our fellow man. Perhaps you would find the Church documents on social justice enlightening. The Church has a deep and rich teaching on these issues. It recognizes, however, that direct assault on innocent human life must be addressed unambiguously which is the mission these groups have accepted. The indirect and varied ways in which social conditions are unjust are not directly life issues. They are justice issues in a broader and more general sense.

These other justice issues are indeed important. The Church works tirelessly in all of these areas. But, most of what you list are NOT truly life issues. I mean “poverty” may or may not be life-threatening. Poverty is something we should, and do, work to eradicate. Christ said, however, that the poor would always be with us. We nee to work towards just wages, just policies, and just governments. These issues are social justice issues, as are the direct killing of innocent humans which the various pro-life ministries fight against.

Again, however, one cannot make generalities regarding various pro-life ministries implying because they work to end abortion and not hunger they somehow are not really pro-life and are somehow in favor of hunger and poverty. That is a ridiculous argument. The same holds true of disparaging an organization who has a focus on hunger-- for example a food pantry-- and berating them for not being active in the abortion struggle.

Again, many rooms, many charisms, many ministries. There is room in God’s house for all of them.

By not advocating and working against these things, the pro-life groups are not really concerned about all or even most life issues, but only a select few of them. They are not defending life from conception to natural death. They defend life before birth and they defend life just before it ends. For the most part, they are not active at all in defending life of people in between.

I find this to be a silly argument. see above. The fact that I am dedicating my time and resources to a particular ministry does not in any way mean I am against others or do not believe in others. If I work at the food pantry and not the domestic violence shelter, does that mean I am in favor of wife beating?

I would say it is more accurate to use a term like “anti-abortion” or “anti euthanasia” or “anti stem cell research” or “anti contraceptives”, or make a really long sentence like “anti contraceptives/abortion/stem cell research/euthanasia”. But using the term “pro-life” to describe people and organizations that really aren’t is inaccurate and misleading.

I think you are WAY off base. And I think you are insulting the many men and women who have dedicated their lives to the particular area of ministry God has called them to.

 

[runningdude]

I would say it is more accurate to use a term like “anti-abortion” or “anti euthanasia” or “anti stem cell research” or “anti contraceptives”, or make a really long sentence like “anti contraceptives/abortion/stem cell research/euthanasia”. But using the term “pro-life” to describe people and organizations that really aren’t is inaccurate and misleading.

NOOOOOO!!! Catholic’s are not merely “anti-abortion” - that is a statement about as meaningful as saying Catholics are “anti-murder” or “anti-evil”. Catholics are of course against murder and evil, but so are most people.

Catholics are called to be much more than that - Catholics are called to promote the sanctity of life, to advocate for and support mothers who give birth, to give senior citizens a dignified life, to prevent children from being experimented before they’re even 9 month’s past their conception.

If you really want to make this about “accuracy”, abortion has killed 33 million+ children in the United States, and HUNDREDS of million more worldwide in the past thirty years. All wars combined in the past thirty years do not add up to the number of children killed by abortion.

We are in an absolute crisis here and “Pro-life” groups simply NEED to focus most of their efforts on “anti-abortion” efforts. This is the only “accurate” portrayal of the situation needed here.

 

[midori]

I don’t disagree with you-- pro-life is pro-all-human-life.

But I would say that the common emphasis is understandably on the vulnerable in our society, with a primary focus on the elderly and the unborn. I don’t hold it against them for concentrating their efforts on one or two specific causes that need it most.

For example, say a church serves the poor with a soup kitchen. Would you hold it against the soup kitchen for not also providing medical services, beds for the homeless, or a clothes closet for the poor? They’ve chosen their focus, so they can be effective in one specific thing, rather than less-effective in a hundred different things.

What about your own charitable contributions? Do you give a dollar to every charity that requests assistance, or do you focus your philanthropy on a handful of favored organizations?

Actively fighting for the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves is a noble thing. But there’s a difference between not actively championing every single social justice issue under the sun, and mentally being on the “wrong” side of some social justice issues and the “right” side of others. So it would be correct to criticize X individual for wanting to save babies and save the elderly, but thinks that prisoners should fry, but it would be incorrect to criticize a cause that has chosen to specifically champion the rights of the unborn for not actively championing the rights of those on death row while they’re at it. If you happen to find a cause that champions the rights of the unborn but is actively lobbying for the death penalty, yes, that’s hypocritical, but that doesn’t quite sound like what you’re criticizing.

 

[1ke]

But there’s a difference between not actively championing every single social justice issue under the sun, and mentally being on the “wrong” side of some social justice issues and the “right” side of others.

Such as the perennially confused Susan Sarandon. She is rabidly pro-abortion and has participated in many pro-abortion causes all while championing the abolition of the death penalty since her turn as Sr Helen Prejean in the movie Dead Man Walking.

She is one confused individual. Sad really, that she cannot see her grevious error.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

There are many rooms in the Father’s house.

I don’t believe you can equate the fact that various pro-life groups may or may not focus on capital punishment with an endorsement of capital punishment.

The Catholic Church, particularly, has strong language in its teaching regarding the death penalty.

However, one must also be careful to distinguish intrinsically evil acts-- among which are abortion and euthanasia-- from those that are not: death penalty and just war. Criminals and unjust aggressors are not innocent, and just action against them can be taken. What consitutues just action can and does vary depending upon the situation. Again, defense against unjust aggressors is not intrinsically immoral.

Life issues-- those involving the direct taking of human life-- are a subset of the justice we owe to our fellow man. Perhaps you would find the Church documents on social justice enlightening. The Church has a deep and rich teaching on these issues. It recognizes, however, that direct assault on innocent human life must be addressed unambiguously which is the mission these groups have accepted. The indirect and varied ways in which social conditions are unjust are not directly life issues. They are justice issues in a broader and more general sense.

These other justice issues are indeed important. The Church works tirelessly in all of these areas. But, most of what you list are NOT truly life issues. I mean “poverty” may or may not be life-threatening. Poverty is something we should, and do, work to eradicate. Christ said, however, that the poor would always be with us. We nee to work towards just wages, just policies, and just governments. These issues are social justice issues, as are the direct killing of innocent humans which the various pro-life ministries fight against.

Again, however, one cannot make generalities regarding various pro-life ministries implying because they work to end abortion and not hunger they somehow are not really pro-life and are somehow in favor of hunger and poverty. That is a ridiculous argument. The same holds true of disparaging an organization who has a focus on hunger-- for example a food pantry-- and berating them for not being active in the abortion struggle.

Again, many rooms, many charisms, many ministries. There is room in God’s house for all of them.

I find this to be a silly argument. see above. The fact that I am dedicating my time and resources to a particular ministry does not in any way mean I am against others or do not believe in others. If I work at the food pantry and not the domestic violence shelter, does that mean I am in favor of wife beating?

I think you are WAY off base. And I think you are insulting the many men and women who have dedicated their lives to the particular area of ministry God has called them to.

Great explanation and great view of the big pioture. Your post provides a great visual which I plan to share with others.

DGB

 

[mark_a]

By not advocating and working against these things, the pro-life groups are not really concerned about all or even most life issues, but only a select few of them.

It’s about proportionality. Worldwide abortion numbers are approaching 1,000,000,000.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Most people and organizations I know who consider themselves to be pro-life or present themselves that way are pro-life in the sense that they oppose chemical contraception (which may kill babies), abortion (which does kill babies), euthanasia (which kills the elderly and people who are seen as unable to live) and stem cell research (where if I am not mistaken cells from aborted babies are used for research).

I have been on many pro-life sites, and they played a role in helping sway my view against oral contraception. I laer crosschecked many of their claims on other medical sites, and many were proven true. I am grateful to them for that.

However, here is a problem I have.

None of these pro-life sites I have visited also denounce capital punishment (which kills people who society decides are irredeemable or too dangerous to be allowed to live), war (which statistically kills far more noncombatants than combatants), poverty (which contributes to death from disease, hunger, violence), hunger, lack of access to free healthcare (which means some people cannot afford to get treatment and may therefore risk their health and later die), free trade deals (that contribute to poverty in developing countries) and our border enforcement policy with Mexico which forces desperate people looking for work to go into the desert and causes hundreds each year to die a horrendous death.

By not advocating and working against these things, the pro-life groups are not really concerned about all or even most life issues, but only a select few of them. They are not defending life from conception to natural death. They defend life before birth and they defend life just before it ends. For the most part, they are not active at all in defending life of people in between.

I would say it is more accurate to use a term like “anti-abortion” or “anti euthanasia” or “anti stem cell research” or “anti contraceptives”, or make a really long sentence like “anti contraceptives/abortion/stem cell research/euthanasia”. But using the term “pro-life” to describe people and organizations that really aren’t is inaccurate and misleading.

Their goal is defending innocent life

Single issue sites tend to be concerned with single issues, in this case the right of the innocent to life.

 

[mytruepower2]

I think the term “pro-life” is relatively honest as movement names go. It’s certainly more honest than the term “pro-choice.”

However, the real reason why I would identify myself as “pro-life” is merely that it’s quicker to say than “anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-suicide.”

Holding the belief that capital punishment is acceptable under certain circumstances is entirely compatible with Church teaching, and I would go so far as to say that claiming war can never be just is entirely -incompatible- with it.

 

[Newbie2]

I think the term “pro-life” is relatively honest as movement names go. It’s certainly more honest than the term “pro-choice.”

However, the real reason why I would identify myself as “pro-life” is merely that it’s quicker to say than “anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-suicide.”

.

Good post.

We all have to pick our individual battles to fight and being Catholic, in general, we are (supposed to be) pro-life in all the arenas.

 

[mytruepower2]

Good post.

We all have to pick our individual battles to fight and being Catholic, in general, we are (supposed to be) pro-life in all the arenas.

Life is what God intends for everyone.

However, some make the mistake of forgetting that we live in a flawed and broken world, a constant battle for our souls and the souls of others, which we can’t run away from.

If we assume that -this- is God’s kingdom, then we can easily make the mistake of assuming that the church’s perfect doctrines on things like just wars are wrong, but if we acknowledge our imperfections, we can realize that, in fact, the church is right, and our inclinations are wrong.

Premature death is always bad, no matter what goes into it, but the question of whether we have a moral duty, right, or ability to prevent certain deaths is a separate one entirely. Ultimately, it’s not our world. That’s for the next life.

 

[johnnyjones]

First off, “choice” is a cover up word. I really means , I have a babys life in my hands, and my decision will determine whether the child lives or dies. Sick actually.

Most certainly the child is innocent of any crime whereas one found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death is not.

“Pro-choice” is a horrible word. Pro-abortion is the appropriate term for one who advocates such an action. Some have argued that the term "pro-abortion’ would mean that you don’t like abortion but a woman should have a “right” to have one if they want. Well, if you want a woman to have the ability to get one, you
support the action. If you support the action your “pro”.

 

[Calgar]

However, here is a problem I have.

None of these pro-life sites I have visited also denounce capital punishment (which kills people who society decides are irredeemable or too dangerous to be allowed to live), war (which statistically kills far more noncombatants than combatants), poverty (which contributes to death from disease, hunger, violence), hunger, lack of access to free healthcare (which means some people cannot afford to get treatment and may therefore risk their health and later die), free trade deals (that contribute to poverty in developing countries) and our border enforcement policy with Mexico which forces desperate people looking for work to go into the desert and causes hundreds each year to die a horrendous death.

By not advocating and working against these things, the pro-life groups are not really concerned about all or even most life issues, but only a select few of them. They are not defending life from conception to natural death. They defend life before birth and they defend life just before it ends. For the most part, they are not active at all in defending life of people in between.

I would say it is more accurate to use a term like “anti-abortion” or “anti euthanasia” or “anti stem cell research” or “anti contraceptives”, or make a really long sentence like “anti contraceptives/abortion/stem cell research/euthanasia”. But using the term “pro-life” to describe people and organizations that really aren’t is inaccurate and misleading.

So you think that every single anti-abortion organization should abandon their mission and instead focus on a wide range of things that you want them to?

 

[KateKimmer]

I think people are forgetting that one CAN BE prolife and at the same time support the death penalty.
Just punishment is allowed for people convicted of heinous crimes. The catholic church has never said a practicing catholic must be against the death penalty.
I definitely support capital punishment. The victims of these terrible crimes are forgotten too soon and tehy sure don’t get to come back to life after 25 years.

 

[Qoeleth]

The topic reminds me of something in the British comedy, “The New Statesman”- where Alan Ba’stard (a Thatcherite politician) says: “Let me be clear- I am not pro-choice. I am pro-abortion.”

On the topic- the anti-abortion position is not vitalist. It is not like mortal life is the highest value. On the contrary, it is opposition to the sin of murder. So, I think the term anti-abortion (or more accurately anti-murder) is truer.

 

[Corki]

All Catholics should be pro-life, as the Popes have stated, from the moment of conception to natural death.

However, the Church also teaches that the greatest effort should be placed on protecting innocent life and that of those most vulnerable. That would be the unborn, the elderly, the disabled.

Second, the Church makes distinctions between those “pro life” positions that protect the very existence of life (abortion, euthanasia) and those that deal with the quality of life (poverty, access to health care) with the greater effort rightly going to the former. (as an aside, there is no Church position on** free **healthcare, just healthcare access)

And lastly, the Church allows for Catholics to form different opinions on how to deal with many life issues but not all. There is only one valid position, for example, regarding abortion but there are many, many opinions on how best to combat poverty or war.

I rarely encounter anyone who is pro-life with regard to abortion but is pro-war or pro-poverty. I am fairly active with the pro-life group in our parish and, to a man, everyone is involved in some form of other social outreach - feeding the hungry, visiting the elderly, prison ministry, etc. So, it wouldn’t be fair to characterize them as just anti-abortion.

In my experience, as far as Catholic organizations go, it is rare to see capital punishment (or even contraception) as an issue that is dealt with by pro-life groups. This is often simply due to how the Church is organized at the diocisan level. In our diocese, for example, the issue of capital punishment is addressed via the Social Justice department of the chancery offices; contraception is addressed via the Family Life department and other life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic destructive stem cell research) are addressed via the pro-life office.

 

[runningdude]

All Catholics should be pro-life, as the Popes have stated, from the moment of conception to natural death.
…
In my experience, as far as Catholic organizations go, it is rare to see capital punishment (or even contraception) as an issue that is dealt with by pro-life groups. This is often simply due to how the Church is organized at the diocisan level. In our diocese, for example, the issue of capital punishment is addressed via the Social Justice department of the chancery offices; contraception is addressed via the Family Life department and other life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic destructive stem cell research) are addressed via the pro-life office.

Best summary to date in this thread:thumbsup: