Pro-Life is from human conception to natural death and all in between. At least that’s my belief. I can’t speak for others.
I think most people on here are pro-life in the sense of wanting to preserve human life from conception to natural death.
not sure if this is truly the case but this is how I understand it
True. They also call pro-lifers “anti-choice” for the same reason. After all, it’s part of their argument that everyone who opposes abortion does so purely out of a desire to repress women
“Prolife” and “prochoice” are terms chosen by the respective sides in the abortion debate to identify themselves. They are appropriate terms because they reflect the primary values upheld by each side. One side thinks (rightly) that the primary consideration should be the life of the unborn child. The other side thins (wrongly) that the right of the mother to “choice” trumps this consideration.
And that’s the problem. The problem with saying pro-life just means anti-abortion takes away the meaning of LIFE from pro-LIFE. The problem with saying that pro-life just means anti-abortion gives the message that the most important person is the person in the womb, and after they are born, they aren’t as important. That’s not the case. All life is important! Now, I’m not advocating that we should down case abortion and say it’s not that bad, because that would be wrong. If you say are pro-life, then you must denounce abortion as a grave evil, because after all, abortion is the killing of an innocent child. But if you are truly pro-life, then you also must not forget the born that are poor.
Yeah, those types are sometimes at the Planned Parenthood in my area. They seem to think that every woman going in or even just passing closely by the door is looking for an abortion. They could be going for a pregnancy test or even to get a refereal for a UTI test. I do not like these people and they give all pro-lifers a bad name.I think most people on here are pro-life in the sense of wanting to preserve human life from conception to natural death.
But there are some abortion protesters I’ve heard of - not on here, but elsewhere - who seem less about ‘the unborn child’ and more about ‘screaming at women.’ They don’t appear interested in any other pro-life causes either.
So I’d say the criticism can be valid in some cases
Exactly. The irony is that by yelling and scaring the women, it’s going to send them running right into the clinic just to get away from them.
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.
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’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.