Pro-Life=Anti-Abortion

[Mulligan2]

Errrm, semantically two terms are not equivalent in definition because you think of one when you hear the other. The inference “X is pro-life; therefore X is anti-abortion” is surely valid. It is probably even reasonable to infer “X is anti-abortion; therefore X is pro-life.” But it does not follow that being pro-life is coextensive with being anti-abortion, anymore than being (say) fiscally liberal is coextensive with being a Democrat. There are so many counterexamples that they need not even be mentioned.

I believe that society in general views the terms “pro life” and “anti abortion” as virtually one and the same.

I’m not really interested in sorting everyone into groups according to “You’re pro this! you’re anti that!” but I’d say that someone who says that they think that abortion should be a choice is pro-abortion (in the same way that someone who says that they think that gun ownership should be a choice is pro-gun). If I’m misrepresenting you, please clarify, because I can’t tell what your point is.

I’m rather befuddled by your analogy. I don’t own a gun. Never have. Heck, I don’t even think I’ve ever even held a gun in my hand. Yet I don’t begrudge others for owning guns for sporting purposes or perceived security reasons. That certainly doesn’t make me pro-gun. And I believe it is reasonable to have certain limits on the types of guns that can be owned. That certainly doesn’t make me anti-gun either.

 

[polytropos]

I believe that society in general views the terms “pro life” and “anti abortion” as virtually one and the same.

From which it also doesn’t follow that they mean the same thing. Can you clarify the point you’re making? Are you saying that there is no content in the term pro-life except opposition to abortion? Say a pro-life bill is passed in some country forbidding euthanasia; is it a contradiction in terms? When the pope called for a day of fasting for Syria, was he not engaging in a pro-life activity?

I’m rather befuddled by your analogy. I don’t own a gun. Never have. Heck, I don’t even think I’ve ever even held a gun in my hand. Yet I don’t begrudge others for owning guns for sporting purposes or perceived security reasons. That certainly doesn’t make me pro-gun. And I believe it is reasonable to have certain limits on the types of guns that can be owned. That certainly doesn’t make me anti-gun either.

Where did I suggest you owned a gun? My mentioning of gun ownership had nothing to do with you in particular. It was a statement that someone leaving it up to someone’s choice is still taking a position on the issue (that people are permitted to to X). Whether you support some gun ownership and not others is not really relevant.

Gun ownership was a parenthetical tangent, anyway. The main point is that it is hard to describe the endorsement of others’ choices to engage in a behavior (say, having an abortion) as not supporting that behavior (ie. being pro-abortion). One could, certainly, be “pro-choice” without supporting abortion (like Christopher Hitchens, perhaps), but that is just playing semantics (since in the same sense, you could conceivably have someone who is pro-life on, say, euthanasia but not abortion).

 

[vz71]

That’s my interpretation as well. As an example, what is the first thing you think of when someone describes themselves as being pro-life? I would guess you would think they are opposed to abortion. In other words, that they are anti-abortion. In practical application, the terms “pro life” and “anti abortion” are interchangeable, regardless of what anyone wishes the term “pro life” to mean.

And to those who use the term “pro abortion” to describe someone who isn’t anti abortion. Sorry, but “pro choice” does not mean “pro abortion” in the way that “pro life” equals “anti abortion”. Not even close.

Context.
I have found many occasions where pro-life meant they stood by the church.
In conversation of euthanasia, it means standing against it.

 

[tjones80]

Do you guys feel that people sometimes mistakenly refer to pro-life as anti-abortion sometimes? I mean, shouldn’t pro-life mean so much more than anti-abortion? Shouldn’t pro-life mean respecting the life and dignity of each and every human from conception to even after natural death? (Burying the dead is a corporal act of mercy). Or am I wrong and pro-life should just mean anti-abortion.

The vast majority of people that say they are pro-life only mean when it comes to abortion. They favor warfare and the death penalty for the most part. The Catholic Church Hierarchy usually means all life when talking about pro-life, but most others in the pro-life camp only mean birth. Many republican party members are also against any type of welfare for single mothers and children. You can see this with the elimination of welfare and cuts made to programs that help mothers and children to buy food and attempts to eliminate medicaid for them.
Basically it is a “you are born now you must sink or swim” philosophy.

 

[tstrong728]

The vast majority of people that say they are pro-life only mean when it comes to abortion. They favor warfare and the death penalty for the most part. The Catholic Church Hierarchy usually means all life when talking about pro-life, but most others in the pro-life camp only mean birth. Many republican party members are also against any type of welfare for single mothers and children. You can see this with the elimination of welfare and cuts made to programs that help mothers and children to buy food and attempts to eliminate medicaid for them.
Basically it is a “you are born now you must sink or swim” philosophy.

Wow, this statement is so wrong in that it broadly over-generalizes and under-states the more nuanced beliefs that others have. It’s not very charitable in its stereotyping and mis-statement.

 

[Kamaduck]

Do you guys feel that people sometimes mistakenly refer to pro-life as anti-abortion sometimes? I mean, shouldn’t pro-life mean so much more than anti-abortion? Shouldn’t pro-life mean respecting the life and dignity of each and every human from conception to even after natural death? (Burying the dead is a corporal act of mercy). Or am I wrong and pro-life should just mean anti-abortion.

Politically, it seems to be synonymous with anti-abortion. I think in a political context, if we’re talking about just abortion, we probably should use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion. I know a lot of people don’t like them, but they seem a lot clearer to me.

The Catholic Church is indeed pro-life in a more general sense, but I don’t think that applies to everyone who uses the label. Similar to how “pro-choice” people may also support tight government control of education or insurance, “pro-life” people sometimes see nothing wrong with war, the death penalty, or allowing illegal immigrants to starve. Many people call themselves pro-life or pro-choice, but they are specifically talking about the context of abortion, and we have to be aware of that.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Do you guys feel that people sometimes mistakenly refer to pro-life as anti-abortion sometimes? I mean, shouldn’t pro-life mean so much more than anti-abortion? Shouldn’t pro-life mean respecting the life and dignity of each and every human from conception to even after natural death? (Burying the dead is a corporal act of mercy). Or am I wrong and pro-life should just mean anti-abortion.

You are correct that pro-life means more than anti-abortion. The dignity of the human person from conception until natural death, (And even beyond, as you say, as I suppose you would call Catholics pro-afterlife as well). While we all hold ALL life sacred in our hearts, the culture we live in seems sensitive already to much of human life. It is the squeaky wheel which needs greasing. The part of life that the culture has swept under the rug is the life of the unborn, who are also, as fate would have it, incapable of speaking for themselves to the culture. So seeing the portion of the pro-life movement which needs the most apparent attention at the moment as a reaction to modernism and the sexual revolution, the cries of the unborn who are murdered by the millions can only find it’s voice through us who were fortunate enough to have been born, and not have had that right taken away from us. So while this may seem like an annoyance to a culture which doesn’t seem to want to hear their cries, it is the way in which they must communicate. We must stand the loudest for those who are most quiet on their own. Right now that is the unborn, and those growing closer to the natural end of their days…the elderly, who in many European countries, and a few of the states are subject to being victims of euthanasia. This will be another much louder and more prominent outcry as the baby boomer generation continues to age.

Hope this helps as a small explanation of why the anti-abortion gets a lot more ink that some of the other aspects of the life cause at the moment.

May God bless,

Steven

 

[Brandall]

I’m anti abortion and that is a fair description of my views. I’m also anti euthanasia and anti death penalty. I’m not offended by any of these titles.

 

[Sky_River]

Pro-life just means that one does not violate the right to life, from which all other rights follow.

Abortion/euthanasia are the major issues. But it would also include, of course, opposition to unjust wars, defense of the innocent, etc.

That said, I don’t really like the terms pro-life or pro-choice, as they are more political and rhetorical than anything else.

Which terms do you like, instead?

 

[Captain_America]

Do you guys feel that people sometimes mistakenly refer to pro-life as anti-abortion sometimes? I mean, shouldn’t pro-life mean so much more than anti-abortion? Shouldn’t pro-life mean respecting the life and dignity of each and every human from conception to even after natural death? (Burying the dead is a corporal act of mercy). Or am I wrong and pro-life should just mean anti-abortion.

for me, I think you’re wrong. The essential philosophy motivating my opposition of abortion, and concern for those being killed, has to do with valuing human integrity. . . LIFE.

So to me, pro-life is the more accurate term.

Here, in 2013, I the the media is being either ignorant of prolife reality, or entirely dissembling (and politically motivated/biased) by constantly shaking around the term “anti-abortion.”

That’s just so 1970s.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

The term “pro-life” is meaningless rhetoric, especially when many “pro-lifers” who care about the life of the fetus seem the ignore the wellbeing of the child after it is born. If you want to prevent abortions, you need things like universal healthcare, quality public education for all, welfare, a fair economy, etc.

 

[HoneyBea]

Yeah, I’m not touching that one lol enjoy.

 

[adrift]

The term “pro-life” is meaningless rhetoric, especially when many “pro-lifers” who care about the life of the fetus seem the ignore the wellbeing of the child after it is born. If you want to prevent abortions, you need things like universal healthcare, quality public education for all, welfare, a fair economy, etc.

This rhetoric is tiresome. Where do you get the “many”. What is it based on? I suspect that it is based on prejudice and nothing more. Where is your proof that the child’s well being is ignored. In fact, if you look you will find the opposite is true. This is the Pro-abortion lies to justify their heartlessness in treating the preborn as less than human. None of the things you mention would prevent abortions. Abortions are not from a lack of health care, education or because of the economy.
People who oppose abortion are often accused of not caring for children when they are born. This accusation is unsubstantiated. It would be more true to say it of the pro-choice crowd. Where the only choice presented to the victim is death.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The term “pro-life” is meaningless rhetoric, especially when many “pro-lifers” who care about the life of the fetus seem the ignore the wellbeing of the child after it is born. If you want to prevent abortions, you need things like universal healthcare, quality public education for all, welfare, a fair economy, etc.

It is not clear to me, at least, how including easy access to abortion (often for trivial reasons) under universal health care and as a feature of public education (a la Planned Parenthood) demonstrates “care about the life of the fetus.” (Your use of the word “fetus” to describe a child before birth betrays your underlying position.)

It is not clear, either, how universal access to abortion under your lauded health care system along with abortion education that promotes it will “prevent abortions,” since, clearly the aim is precisely the opposite.

This means your support for “universal health care” and “quality public education” as formulated by the current administration is, likewise, nothing more than “meaningless rhetoric” regarding “care about the life of the fetus.”

(As a side observation: You seem to be quite willing to toss about your own meaningless rhetoric whenever the opportunity arises.)

Nor do I understand how including access to easy abortion under universal health care supports the valuing of human life AFTER birth. The fact that women are free to kill unborn children up to the time of their birth serves only to cheapen the value of children after birth, since by any measurable standard a child just prior to birth is in relevant terms NO DIFFERENT from a child immediately after birth.

The inclusion of abortion in your lauded universal health care and public education sends an implicit message to any child that, “Your value is strictly determined by the value your birth mother places on you. Without that valuation, you are nothing more than disposable genetic material.”

Any philosophy that removes the inherent value of any human being and makes it solely determinable by the “valuing” bestowed on him/her by others, has clearly underlined their belief that a right to life is not foundational in their philosophy, but, rather, incidental and very tentative.

To be pro-life means holding that life is valuable, in and of itself, and that value is not up for discussion or dependent upon the determination of the current ruling polity, no matter how delusional they are regarding their authority.

 

[Lochias]

It is not clear to me, at least, how including easy access to abortion (often for trivial reasons) under universal health care and as a feature of public education (a la Planned Parenthood) demonstrates “care about the life of the fetus.” (Your use of the word “fetus” to describe a child before birth betrays your underlying position.)

It is not clear, either, how universal access to abortion under your lauded health care system along with abortion education that promotes it will “prevent abortions,” since, clearly the aim is precisely the opposite.

This means your support for “universal health care” and “quality public education” as formulated by the current administration is, likewise, nothing more than “meaningless rhetoric” regarding “care about the life of the fetus.”

(As a side observation: You seem to be quite willing to toss about your own meaningless rhetoric whenever the opportunity arises.)

Nor do I understand how including access to easy abortion under universal health care supports the valuing of human life AFTER birth. The fact that women are free to kill unborn children up to the time of their birth serves only to cheapen the value of children after birth, since by any measurable standard a child just prior to birth is in relevant terms NO DIFFERENT from a child immediately after birth.

The inclusion of abortion in your lauded universal health care and public education sends an implicit message to any child that, “Your value is strictly determined by the value your birth mother places on you. Without that valuation, you are nothing more than disposable genetic material.”

Any philosophy that removes the inherent value of any human being and makes it solely determinable by the “valuing” bestowed on him/her by others, has clearly underlined their belief that a right to life is not foundational in their philosophy, but, rather, incidental and very tentative.

To be pro-life means holding that life is valuable, in and of itself, and that value is not up for discussion or dependent upon the determination of the current ruling polity, no matter how delusional they are regarding their authority.

Freaking well said. That was a pleasure to read.