Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheWatcher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheWatcher

Guest
So, just to make it clear…

If someone believes abortion should be banned, except in extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or when the pregnancy puts the life of the pregnant woman at risk…

Is this person Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Please explain.

I don’t wish this thread to become whether or not these should be allowed; I’m more interested in where the line is being drawn between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding this line.
 
To me, the use of the phrase “except in extreme cases” indicates that to this person there are circumstances in which it would be permissible to opt for abortion. So I would say that a person of this mindset is “pro-choice”, not “pro-life”.
 
I’d say they are inconsistently pro-life.

Beliefs about abortion fall on a continuum in public thought. Those who think this way are more pro-life than most.
 
Beliefs about abortion fall on a continuum in public thought. Those who think this way are more pro-life than most.

I agree. Henry Hyde is seen as a hero to many in the pro life camp because of his amendment that limits federal funds for abortion except in extreme conditions.
 
The true Pro-Life values life more not the choice of the mother.
Pro-Choice should obviously mean possibility of abortion.

This question should be made public especially those who write in the daily papers.
 
lizaanne said:
No confusion at all. Zero tolerance for murder is pro-life. Anything else is pro-choice.

Easy peasy.

~Liza
Click to expand...
There are a lot of people who call themselves “pro-life” and who believe that abortions in extreme circumstances are okay.

If you hold to your ‘zero tolerance’ then, yes, there should be no confusion.

Not everyone holds to that, however, and confusion results.
 
Some things God made black and white. Murder for one. Of course matters of rape, incest, or health of the woman complicates things. As I would say to the first two: Two wrongs don’t make a right. The last: The baby has a right to live too. In fact, I have two great quotes to back that last one up:

“The doctor should not meddle. The right of the child is equal to the right of the mother’s life. The doctor can’t decide; it is a sin to kill in the womb.”
~St. Gianna Beretta Molla

“A person’s a person no matter how small.”
~Dr. Seuss
 
TheWatcher said:
So, just to make it clear…
If someone believes abortion should be banned, except in extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or when the pregnancy puts the life of the pregnant woman at risk…
Is this person Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

**Such a person would be pro-choice. **

Please explain.

**Pro-lifers are totally against abortion all the time in all cases, no matter what the circumstances are. I’m also finding that they also are opposed to emergency contraception unless the woman being raped is tested first to make sure ovulation hasn’t already begun.

Pro-choice means being open to both life and abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion simply by virtue of the fact that they are not opposed to the choice of not having an abortion. Pro-choice means being able to choose either way. Therefore, though the above person you describe is against abortion, that person is open to abortion in cases of rape or when a woman’s life is at risk. A pro-lifer is anti-abortion in all circumstances.
**

I don’t wish this thread to become whether or not these should be allowed; I’m more interested in where the line is being drawn between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”
I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding this line.

There is a very distinct line. Pro-lifers are against abortion in all circumstances for everyone across the board. Pro-choicers believe that the choice is up to the woman, whatever the circumstances may be. There are some pro-choicers that only want abortion to be a choice for rape or the live of the woman, but that still means a choice is there.
Click to expand...
 
Moscati said:
I’d say they are inconsistently pro-life.

Beliefs about abortion fall on a continuum in public thought. Those who think this way are more pro-life than most.
Click to expand...
rep140 said:
Beliefs about abortion fall on a continuum in public thought. Those who think this way are more pro-life than most.
Click to expand...
Yeah, given only two choices in the OP, I’d have to say Pro-choice, reason being that there is always a choice involved in a abortion, even if the mother chooses to risk or end up sacrificing her own life for her child’s.

I’d agree, though, that in some cases it’s best to acknowledge a “mostly” pro-life position, rather than to critisize it as “solely” pro-choice.
 
Newbie2 said:
I’d agree, though, that in some cases it’s best to acknowledge a “mostly” pro-life position, rather than to critisize it as “solely” pro-choice.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the child who never ends up “mostly” dead from an abortion.

~Liza
 
TheWatcher said:
So, just to make it clear…

If someone believes abortion should be banned, except in extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or when the pregnancy puts the life of the pregnant woman at risk…

Is this person Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Please explain.

I don’t wish this thread to become whether or not these should be allowed; I’m more interested in where the line is being drawn between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

I think there is a lot of confusion surrounding this line.
Click to expand...
Quite right. This question is loaded, and we’re not going to determine anything remotely close to an accurate picture of people’s actual positions. It’s a useless question. It needs to be reformulated.
 
There is a very distinct line. Pro-lifers are against abortion in all circumstances for everyone across the board. Pro-choicers believe that the choice is up to the woman, whatever the circumstances may be. There are some pro-choicers that only want abortion to be a choice for rape or the live of the woman, but that still means a choice is there.

By hoping to keep the Hyde amendment in effect, this definition puts the USCCB in the pro choice camp. This is why I dislike labels. I think the bishops are doing the best they can given public sentiment.
 
Rence said:
Pro-lifers are totally against abortion all the time in all cases, no matter what the circumstances are. I’m also finding that they also are opposed to emergency contraception unless the woman being raped is tested first to make sure ovulation hasn’t already begun.

Pro-choice means being open to both life and abortion. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion simply by virtue of the fact that they are not opposed to the choice of not having an abortion. Pro-choice means being able to choose either way. Therefore, though the above person you describe is against abortion, that person is open to abortion in cases of rape or when a woman’s life is at risk. A pro-lifer is anti-abortion in all circumstances.

There is a very distinct line. Pro-lifers are against abortion in all circumstances for everyone across the board. Pro-choicers believe that the choice is up to the woman, whatever the circumstances may be. There are some pro-choicers that only want abortion to be a choice for rape or the live of the woman, but that still means a choice is there.
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. The problem is with the poll. You are not going to get any accurate picture of what people actually believe by such a general question because many people that call themselves “pro-life,” for instance, will make exceptions such as when he woman’s life is threatened. You need to advertize your own distinctions to the public for whom you are taking the poll before you propose that question to them. So you need to ask very specific questions, not general ones like this, otherwise most people will perceive you as tricking them into answering a question that made them automatically side with a political agenda they didn’t want to side with from the start.
 
lizaanne said:
Tell that to the child who never ends up “mostly” dead from an abortion.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Hey, I don’t hold the position that abortions are justified under any circumstance. But don’t you think that, relatively speaking, it’s better to have a “mostly” pro-life stance than a totally pro-choice stance?

Sure, in an ideal world every pro-lifer would be 100% pro-life. My guess is that we’d have a better chance of convincing a “mostly” pro-lifer of our position than a “fully” pro-choicer.
 
At the moment of conception the “fetus” is human. To deny is life in the case of rape…incest or otherwise is to deny the baby the right to full life. It is not the baby’s choice to have been conceived in an aggressive manner. It becomes the fruit of rape or incest…but is still a human. To end its being carried to full term is murder.

If a baby is aborted after a conscentual act is no different to the baby as if it were conceived through rape or incest.

Just my thoughts…which I believe are in line with Church teaching.
 
Newbie2 said:
Hey, I don’t hold the position that abortions are justified under any circumstance. But don’t you think that, relatively speaking, it’s better to have a “mostly” pro-life stance than a totally pro-choice stance?

Sure, in an ideal world every pro-lifer would be 100% pro-life. My guess is that we’d have a better chance of convincing a “mostly” pro-lifer of our position than a “fully” pro-choicer.
Click to expand...
No I don’t. Because that is a very slippery slope where you then end up with ridiculous legislation that has exceptions for the mental health of the mother, her family, and anyone associated with her. Sorry - this IS very much a black and white issue. Murdering an unborn child for any reason is wrong. Period. Any other option is in favor of the murder of an innocent, and that is NOT EVER pro-life. Not even an eensy-weensy bit.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
No I don’t. Because that is a very slippery slope where you then end up with ridiculous legislation that has exceptions for the mental health of the mother, her family, and anyone associated with her. Sorry - this IS very much a black and white issue. Murdering an unborn child for any reason is wrong. Period. Any other option is in favor of the murder of an innocent, and that is NOT EVER pro-life. Not even an eensy-weensy bit.

~Liza
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
lizaanne said:
No I don’t. Because that is a very slippery slope where you then end up with ridiculous legislation that has exceptions for the mental health of the mother, her family, and anyone associated with her. Sorry - this IS very much a black and white issue. Murdering an unborn child for any reason is wrong. Period. Any other option is in favor of the murder of an innocent, and that is NOT EVER pro-life. Not even an eensy-weensy bit.

~Liza
Click to expand...
OK, so if you had a choice between legislation that allowed for abortion in very specific circumstances and legislation that allowed for unrestricted abortions, which would you choose (and please don’t say that you’d prefer legislation that prevented all abortions, because that isn’t gonna happen in our society, even though we both would want it to)?
 
Newbie2 said:
OK, so if you had a choice between legislation that allowed for abortion in very specific circumstances and legislation that allowed for unrestricted abortions, which would you choose (and please don’t say that you’d prefer legislation that prevented all abortions, because that isn’t gonna happen in our society, even though we both would want it to)?
Click to expand...
You are not going to get me to ever say that it’s ok so stop trying. 😉 Just because those are the only options does not mean that it is even the slightest bit pro-life - and THAT is the question in the OP. We are not discussing the faults in legislation, that is a different topic for a different thread.

~Liza
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top