What is really Pro-Life?

[undead_rat]

“support from the state” for a mother and child under the TANF program is only $316 per month- less than poverty in 2018- in Pennsylvania. A lot of states pay less.
It is a lot better for the Baby’s Daddy to pony up a decent amount of support for his own offspring.

Of course that would be better. But what we are talking about here is the father who doesn’t want to do the right thing by supporting his child (and this is certainly not a hypothetical situation.) In that circumstance child support laws encourage abortion because it is a lot less expensive as a one time procedure than 18 years of child support payments.

 

[grt]

Pro-life in the US has usually meant anti-abortion; even then it’s vague, since some are against any abortion, while some are for abortion if it will supposedly save the mother’s life.

I’ve often wished we would just stick to the term anti-abortion. Everyone in the world thinks they are pro-life in some sense, whatever it means to them; anti-abortion would be more specific, and hearing it would make people think of the abortion procedure itself.

 

[Arkansan]

If a word means everything, then it means nothing. The term “pro-life” lends itself to this type of misuse, which is why I prefer to simply say that I am anti-abortion (and anti-theft, anti-rape, etc.)

 

[Ender]

Well as a believer and follow of Christ and his Catholic Church, these are issues that are real and concerning the Pope and our Bishops.

If you can’t accept that a valid argument exists that several items on your list don’t belong there you should at least recognize that it is a serious tactical error to include them under the “pro-life” umbrella, because you create divisions within a group that should be allied together. I reject several of your claims, and still consider myself strongly pro-life regardless of your opinion. What you have done is to set people against one another who agree on the major life issues because they disagree with your own personal opinion on the matter. That’s not really helpful. Would I be justified in saying you’re not really pro-life if you deliberately cause divisions in the pro-life camp? No? Well, your characterization is equally unwarranted.

 

[Ender]

Racism and hate is at an all time high because of Trump.

It’s not that Trump caused the hatred; he merely exposed it.

 

[Ignatius64869]

Pro-life is, in the strictest terms, for life. I agree with the OP that all of those issues (Catholic Social Teaching) are wrapped into the pro-life label because they all have to do with preserving life. The opposite of all those issues leads to the deaths of people. God does not want people to kill people. God does not want people to suffer. God is not okay with us having an unjust world, for God is a just God and the kingdom fo God is here and now! It is not a long-hoped for heaven. If there is something on earth that is not the way you imagine it will be in heaven (social justice-wise, so sex an other things necessary for human survival excluded), then we, as Christians, are called to fix it.

EvangelistVictor, I would add care for the earth and the climate to the OP’s list, for many people will soon be displaced and starving due to the effects of climate change. It’s a life or death issue for those in third-world countries, especially those who live near the oceans.

 

[EvangelistVictor]

EvangelistVictor, I would add care for the earth and the climate to the OP’s list, for many people will soon be displaced and starting due to the effects of climate change. It’s a life or death issue for third-world countries, especially those who live near the oceans.

Yes, Pope Francis tell us to care for our planet also. Thanks and Blessings

 

[Shakuhachi]

Not expose it, condones it.

 

[Peeps]

This is excellent, and so very true. A great reminder to measure our days and use our time on this earth wisely.

SaintMirror, bless you for your energy!

I’m not sure if you have a lot of free time because you have a source of income that does not require you to work 8 hours/day or more, or if you are just one of those people who has learned to efficiently utilize your free time outside of your job and get a lot of things done in a short time. Either way, it is good that you are able to be involved with so many good causes.

May I ask if most of your involvement is in the form of letter-writing, phone calls, and newspaper columns, or are you on the road doing lobbying-type work, fundraising, recruiting, protesting, etc. Or perhaps your work is more hands-on; e.g., volunteering in pregnancy life centers, stocking shelves at a food pantry, or perhaps even teaching prisoners life skills? I think any one of these activities would take a lot of time and emotional energy, so it’s great that you’re involved with multiple activities.

I used to have a lot more energy, but I chose to expend much of that energy on my husband and children, and my involvement with various church ministries (we were Evangelical Protestant back then). However, I was also involved in multiple community activities, not only pro-life activities (sheltering women in crisis pregnancies, providing free child-care for teenage mothers trying to finish high school, volunteering at a food co-op, travelling to Washington D.C. for protests, and lots of letter-writing to my local newspaper as well as to elected officials (back before we had computers and all the writing had to be done on a type-writer!).

I admit that I wish I had spent a little more of my energy on myself, as I basically ignored my health and fitness, gained too much weight eating junk instead of planning, shopping, and preparing healthy meals. Also, although I did a lot of activities with my children, I didn’t do any regular fitness activities myself, so now that I am old, I am really feeling the loss of physical strength and flexibility, as well as a lot of pain from my knees after working all day. (Yes, I still work full time.) Often I am so tired I fall asleep in whatever evening activity I’m involved with–so discouraging. I honestly think I probably squandered my good genes and took several years off my life by being over-involved… I wish I had been wiser in my choices and perhaps selected one or maybe just two issues to get passionate about.

I say this as a caution to you–please take care of yourself, especially if you are part of a family with children, and if you are still holding down a full-time job. Don’t burn yourself out like so many of us who tried to help everyone except ourselves.

 

[Ender]

Pro-life is, in the strictest terms, for life. I agree with the OP that all of those issues (Catholic Social Teaching) are wrapped into the pro-life label because they all have to do with preserving life

The problem here is that if everything is a life issue then they are all equally serious, and there is no way to rank this life issue greater than that one. As I said earlier, all this approach does is to divide the pro-life camp against itself.

Virtually every political issue affects our lives. If it didn’t there would hardly be a need to address it with laws, so if every issue has to do with protecting or improving our lives, what could possibly be a non-life issue? Sure, include climate change. While you’re at it you might as reasonably include issues dealing with speed limits and early voting. Don’t reasonable speed limits reduce accidents and save lives? Well, that makes it a life issue (your definition). Doesn’t early voting deal with our basic rights as citizens, and doesn’t that affect the quality of our lives? See, a life issue.

The term is now meaningless. Well done.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Would an alternative to tying everything into “pro-life” be simply just be relating issues to human dignity and letting people debate said policies
within that sphere?

 

[Ignatius64869]

They are all serious, but that does not necessarily make each issue equally serious. I don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion. Going to war is bad. Going to war with nuclear weapons is worse. I can call myself a pacifist and be against them both. Doing so does not make the term “pacifist” meaningless; it just makes me consistent.

Each individual ought to discern which issues they can reasonably change or improve and work to improve whichever issue they can here an now. Priority should not be given to the most grave issue if one cannot change that grave issue. Instead, priority should be given to the issue that one can most effectively change.

It’s building the kingdom of God.
Imagine you are building a house, and there are many rooms that need to be built. You have all the tools and supplies needed to build the living room, but you refuse to build the living room until you’ve finished the kitchen (even though the supplies for the kitchen are on an indefinite backorder and you have no idea when it they will arrive) since the kitchen is a more important than the living room. Instead of moving on to the living room until the time is right to build the kitchen, you just sit in kitchen talking about how much you wish the supplies would arrive and how the kitchen ought to look. You refuse to consider that, while the kitchen may be imperfect with alternative supplies, you could order alternative supplies that would make the kitchen better than it is now. You maintain, however, that the kitchen must be perfect, and it must be perfect before you can move on to the other rooms in the house.

Then imagine someone else comes by who wants to build the living room, and instead of recognizing the this person has different priorities, you claim that the person is anti-kitchen. That man replies, “no, sir, I just think all the rooms are important, and while the kitchen is really, really important (among the most important in the house), I cannot stand by and watch the living room crumble waiting for the kitchen supplies to arrive, even though they are not coming any time soon. No worries though, I still care deeply about the kitchen, and when the supplies arrive, I will certainly come over and help you build it! I will even go to Home Depot and buy supplies so that we can start building the kitchen even though we won’t be able to finish it yet.”

Don’t reasonable speed limits reduce accidents and save lives?

If there were a group against reasonable speed limits, then yes, it would be a life issue. I just don’t have that issue in my area. However, if there were an intersection that continuously resulted in deaths and the government refused to do anything about it, then it would be a life issue, and I would do everything in my power to preserve those lives by working for change.

 

[Ignatius64869]

Doesn’t early voting deal with our basic rights as citizens, and doesn’t that affect the quality of our lives

I’m not saying any issue that affects our lives is a life issue. I am saying that any issue that results in the destruction of human life or basic human dignity is a life issue. Early voting, while convenient, does not result in death or in the destruction of our basic human dignity.

 

[Ender]

I’m not sure that’s anything more than selecting a different euphemism. Not all political issues have the same significance, not even all moral issues are equally significant. Identifying some small group as being “life” issues singles out the ones that are in fact more serious than the others; it sets a hierarchy among issues.

Branding more and more concerns with the life label doesn’t increase their level of significance, it only diminishes the significance of those issues that truly deserve the term.

 

[Augustinian]

Pro-life is, in the strictest terms, for life.

“Pro Life” is generally understood to be opposition to Abortion. Not necessarily an advocacy for any other issue, pro or con. Does climate change “affect” life? Possibly. But regardless , it has nothing to do with “pro life”.

Just like “pro-choice” means support for the Abortion issue has nothing to do with “choosing” any outside of this. Is it a choice whether someone should carry a firearm, or supersize it at Wendy’s? sure, but it has nothing to do with “pro Choice”

 

[Ender]

If there were a group against reasonable speed limits, then yes, it would be a life issue.

I think this pretty well captures my concerns with making virtually everything a life issue. Any dispute over speed limits is a dispute over what is “reasonable”, but the key is that there is no moral consideration involved. I might think 55 is the reasonable value; you may think it is 70, and whichever one is chosen may well determine that someone lives or dies as a result, but we have made an entirely prudential choice. One or both of us may have chosen unwisely, but neither of us has chosen imorally.

This is not at all the case with the (traditional) “life” issues, which involve more than just practical guesses about what approach will work best, but involve actual moral choices as well. Absent that, which is in fact absent from the overwhelming number of political issues, the issue should not be give the “life” designation.

 

[Ignatius64869]

“Pro Life” is generally understood to be opposition to Abortion. Not necessarily an advocacy for any other issue, pro or con.

I agree that it has. Those who take my position believe that label is too narrow. Those who take my position believe the anti-abortion stance has highjacked life the pro-life label.

I have no problem with people saying they are anti-aboriton. I am too. I do have a problem with people saying they are pro-life while voting on almost all grounds for policies that will result in the deaths or the degradation of basic human dignity for the poor.

Pro-choice is deliberately developed to remove the implication that they are anti-life. I agree that that label is not necessarily a good one, but neither is the term “pro-life” for those who are actually just anti-aboriton.

In my opinion, the term pro-life ought to include all life issues (every issue that results in the destruction of human lives or basic human dignity). It’s simply more consistent and accurate.

 

[deMontfort]

Lol at Communists trying to co-op the term “pro life”

 

[Shakuhachi]

Why cant we have sub-issues within the broader Pro-life concern? It might even help the pro-choice people to see that we are consistent because life does not end at birth.

 

[Ignatius64869]

I think this pretty well captures my concerns with making virtually everything a life issue. Any dispute over speed limits is a dispute over what is “reasonable”, but the key is that there is no moral consideration involved.

If people were dying because there were no speed limits, and if speed limits could save lives, then it is a moral issue. Deciding whether I buy a shirt from Wal-Mart or from from a fair trade company is a moral issue, even though determining fair wages is more prudential.

Whether it is prudential or absolute does not affect whether it fundamentally preserves the life and dignity of human persons. Any issue that preserves the life and dignity of human persons is, in my opinion, a moral issue.