What is true meaning of "Pro-life"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter barbfromtucson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

barbfromtucson

Guest
O.k. everyone, maybe I’m weird, but…

When someone tells me that they’re “Pro-life”, I read that as “anti-abortion”, perhaps anti-embryonic stem cell and anti-euthanasia.

But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life.

Yes, I include the environment with it because the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. does have an effect on human life, both born and unborn.

I’d be interested to hear others’ definitions of “pro-life”!

–Barbara
 
I think you make a very valid point Barbara! I find there is a terrible irony in people who support war, gun carrying (for self defense obviously) and capital punishment, but detest abortion and label themselves pro-life.
 
FightingFat said:
I think you make a very valid point Barbara! I find there is a terrible irony in people who support war, gun carrying (for self defense obviously) and capital punishment, but detest abortion and label themselves pro-life.
Click to expand...
Oh, so are you not for self protection? 😛
 
barbfromtucson said:
O.k. everyone, maybe I’m weird, but…

When someone tells me that they’re “Pro-life”, I read that as “anti-abortion”, perhaps anti-embryonic stem cell and anti-euthanasia.

But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life.

Yes, I include the environment with it because the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. does have an effect on human life, both born and unborn.

I’d be interested to hear others’ definitions of “pro-life”!

–Barbara
Click to expand...
May I ask what your intent is in asking this question?
 
barbfromtucson said:
O.k. everyone, maybe I’m weird, but…

When someone tells me that they’re “Pro-life”, I read that as “anti-abortion”, perhaps anti-embryonic stem cell and anti-euthanasia.

But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life.

Yes, I include the environment with it because the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. does have an effect on human life, both born and unborn.

I’d be interested to hear others’ definitions of “pro-life”!

–Barbara
Click to expand...
Pro life has always meant the opposite of pro choice until people have tried to justify voting for the party that promotes murder and have changed what it really has always meant. A pretty feeble way to ease their conscious on dumbing down the fact that abortion is murder.
 
dmelosi said:
Pro life has always meant the opposite of pro choice until people have tried to justify voting for the party that promotes murder and have changed what it really has always meant. A pretty feeble way to ease their conscious on dumbing down the fact that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s more of a PR thing. It’s not like those against abortion are not for a choice, just not abortion. Adoption or keeping the child are options. I doubt too that, those who are pro-choice would be very much in favor of a pro-choice stance of how to deal with an annoying neighbor if the choice is move or shot the neighbor.

On the other hand, for more of the question the OP probably intended to ask, if one goes back to the “five non-negotiables” those hinge on being objectively wrong. On other issues, it depends more on the situation at hand, and the intention of the act. A lot of times those who are pro-choice will say they are pro-life, because in their minds they are.

In the end, those titles are easy to use and give people a basic idea if your stance. If you really want to get a feel for an individuals stance, you still have to get to their fundamental principles of his or her stance.
 
dmelosi said:
Pro life has always meant the opposite of pro choice until people have tried to justify voting for the party that promotes murder and have changed what it really has always meant. A pretty feeble way to ease their conscious on dumbing down the fact that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s more of a PR thing. It’s not like those against abortion are not for a choice, just not abortion. Adoption or keeping the child are options. I doubt too that, those who are pro-choice would be very much in favor of a pro-choice stance of how to deal with an annoying neighbor if the choice is move or shot the neighbor.

On the other hand, for more of the question the OP probably intended to ask, if one goes back to the “five non-negotiables” those hinge on being objectively wrong. On other issues, it depends more on the situation at hand, and the intention of the act. A lot of times those who are pro-choice will say they are pro-life, because in their minds they are.

In the end, those titles are easy to use and give people a basic idea if your stance. If you really want to get a feel for an individuals stance, you still have to get to their fundamental principles of his or her stance. The titles can only say so much.
 
barbfromtucson said:
O.k. everyone, maybe I’m weird, but…

When someone tells me that they’re “Pro-life”, I read that as “anti-abortion”, perhaps anti-embryonic stem cell and anti-euthanasia.

But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life.

Yes, I include the environment with it because the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. does have an effect on human life, both born and unborn.

I’d be interested to hear others’ definitions of “pro-life”!

–Barbara
Click to expand...
I decided that while I wait for your answer to my question of your intent, I would post what I feel is pro-life.

To me pro-life is to defend the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

That includes defending ‘natural’ conception and fighting against test-tube attempts to act as God. That includes promoting Natural Family Planning and educating people about the abortofacient characteristics of so-called 'contraceptives" on the market today.

That includes being anti-abortion-on-demand. I define it as such because I know that there are times when in trying to save the mother’s life (in some rare instances) the life of the child is sacrificed. I do not believe in the purposeful killing of the unborn child for any reason, at any time, including for the life of the mother. Being pro-life means being anti- euthanasia, elder-abuse, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and anti-death penalty. I am anti-war but recognize the need to defend ourselves against agressors who would try to, basically, wipe us out.

To be pro-life means to work for soup kitchens, for Habitat for Humanity, to volunteer as Big Brothers/Sisters, to visit the poor, sick and elderly and to educate the public on policies and laws that directly or indirectly promote a culture of death rather than promoting and supporting the right to life of **all **people.

To be pro-life means to encourage other-than-embryonic-stem-cell research. To be pro-life means to educate others about ethical vaccinations for themselves and their children instead of the use of the vaccine lines currently in widespread use developed on the tissue of aborted children.

To be pro-life is to abhor the act of homosexuality and to be anti- ‘gay’ marriage. Neither of those promote new life as traditional marriage, one between one man and one woman, was instituted for this purpose.

I believe that we are to be good stewards of our Earth and to treat it with respect but I am not a tree-hugger. This could be a whole other thread. I won’t get into it here.

It is possible I have missed some points but if you point them out I will tell you my feelings one way or the other.
 
barbfromtucson said:
…
When someone tells me that they’re “Pro-life”, I read that as “anti-abortion”, perhaps anti-embryonic stem cell and anti-euthanasia.

But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life…

–Barbara
Click to expand...
Barbara
I to detest labels as this, particularly the Pro-Choice label which really means my choice. I think the issue your struggling with is liberty. Liberty (or free will) involves your choices verses choices forced on you. This is why many see abortion as force upon the innocent baby. At the same time they see capital punishment as the result of one’s liberty (or free will). They separate just punishment (as capital punishment) from unjust punishment(as abortion). I am not pro capital punishment however I understand their position.

Hope that helps
 
Pro-abortion advocates began calling themselves pro-choice, to make their position look better – a Public Relations move.
Anti-abortion advocates responded by calling themselves pro-life, to avoid being labeled in the public eye as “anti” while their opponents were “pro”.
Pro-choice advocates then began using the (in my opinion, fallacious) argument “If you’re pro-life that means you’re against capital punishment. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite”

The definition of “pro-choice” was stretched over the years to take in other issues, making it harder for those who oppose abortion to describe themselves as pro-life without having these other issues thrown up to them.
 
First, I don’t think that pro-life philosophy rests on liberty. Quite the opposite: it stems from the principle that life is precursor to liberty, and the only real constitutional right that was given us by God. Because after all, even if we live in Iran or in complete anarchy, we’re still alive by Grace of God. The point is that only God can allows who lives and who dies, period. There may be arguments against abortion that allow for advocating the Death Penalty, but they are entirely secular. When Christ was on Earth, he didn’t kill people–he healed them, and even brought some, like Jarius’s daughter and Lazarus, back to life. He is the God of life, not of death.

As for people who are not “100% pro-life,” I don’t criticize people because I think that I’m “more pro-life than them,” i.e., holier-than-thou. My goals coincide with objective truths that come from God, and if anyone can help me do the work of God in any way, I will not criticize them, but rather congratulate them.

I completely agree with you, Barbara and Phliothea, I don’t want to alienate our allies on big issues. For example, if we are going to make abortion illegal in the United States, one our allies will be Evangelical Protestants, many of whom live in death penalty states and agree with the death penalty. We ought to share our common beliefs, and leave conflict for when the abortion holocaust is over. Some of our allies in making the death penalty illegal and protecting the environment are liberal secularists. Let’s accomplish our common goals, and outline our differences when the crises are looked after.

I’m not a liberal, nor an I an ecumenist. I strongly believe that salvation stems from the One True Church, and that abuses going on within the Church has to stop. But remember that although no other Church is going to be completely Catholic, we ought to celebrate elements of Catholic teaching when found in other people–it is their best chance at salvation.
 
Pious_Mat said:
First, I don’t think that pro-life philosophy rests on liberty. Quite the opposite: it stems from the principle that life is precursor to liberty, and the only real constitutional right that was given us by God. Because after all, even if we live in Iran or in complete anarchy, we’re still alive by Grace of God. The point is that only God can allows who lives and who dies, period. There may be arguments against abortion that allow for advocating the Death Penalty, but they are entirely secular. When Christ was on Earth, he didn’t kill people–he healed them, and even brought some, like Jarius’s daughter and Lazarus, back to life. He is the God of life, not of death.

As for people who are not “100% pro-life,” I don’t criticize people because I think that I’m “more pro-life than them,” i.e., holier-than-thou. My goals coincide with objective truths that come from God, and if anyone can help me do the work of God in any way, I will not criticize them, but rather congratulate them.

I completely agree with you, Barbara and Phliothea, I don’t want to alienate our allies on big issues. For example, if we are going to make abortion illegal in the United States, one our allies will be Evangelical Protestants, many of whom live in death penalty states and agree with the death penalty. We ought to share our common beliefs, and leave conflict for when the abortion holocaust is over. Some of our allies in making the death penalty illegal and protecting the environment are liberal secularists. Let’s accomplish our common goals, and outline our differences when the crises are looked after.

I’m not a liberal, nor an I an ecumenist. I strongly believe that salvation stems from the One True Church, and that abuses going on within the Church has to stop. But remember that although no other Church is going to be completely Catholic, we ought to celebrate elements of Catholic teaching when found in other people–it is their best chance at salvation.
Click to expand...
So what to you advise for warring factions, and criminals? Have you surrendered the right of self defense? Will you be pro-life when the criminal comes to kill you?
 
My father once told me, “the only principles a man truly believes in are the ones he will stand up for when they cost him something”. At the time, he was talking about free speech, but I think it is, in general, true.

So, while I don’t dismiss some of the empassioned pleas that I hear from people about their pro-life stance on abortion, I tend to take other please more seriously. For example, last year the Archdiocese of Denver published an opinion peace about victim advocates against the death penalty. It seems to me that a mother of a raped and murdered daughter who cites her faith in arguing against the death penalty is standing for what she believes is right at great cost to herself.

Similiarly, some of you may have heard of a book by Ben Sherman about his experiences as a combat medic and concientious objective in Vietnam. Again, one might argue with his politics, or even his beliefs, but it is hard to question his sincerity.

So I guess, for me, being pro-life is standing up for life not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
 
SoCalRC said:
My father once told me, “the only principles a man truly believes in are the ones he will stand up for when they cost him something”. At the time, he was talking about free speech, but I think it is, in general, true.
Click to expand...
I would re-phrase that is, “The only time you can tell a man truly believes in his principles is when he stands up for them and it costs him something.”

But there have been many people who stood up for the wrong principles at cost to themselves. So I think we must separate the meaning of “pro-life” from the test of personal sincerity.

I suggest the meaning of “pro-life” is respect for all human life, but not to the point of denying the individual and collective rights to self-protection.
 
FightingFat said:
I think you make a very valid point Barbara! I find there is a terrible irony in people who support war, gun carrying (for self defense obviously) and capital punishment, but detest abortion and label themselves pro-life.
Click to expand...
I am pro-life.

I oppose abortion.
I oppose embryonic stem cell research.
I oppose ethenasia.
I oppose MOST uses of the death penalty (this is in accord with the Catechism)
I oppose MOST war (this is in accord with the Catechism)
I oppose violence and have a gun for defense of self/family (this is in accord with the Catechism)

Given that all my pro-life positions are in accord with the Catechism of the Cathoic Church, please explain to me how my positions are hypocritical, or are not pro-life. I’m very curious where I am wrong in thinking when my beliefs are directly in line with the teaching of the Church.

The Church generally believes that the death penalty is used too frequently but does not TOTALLY oppose it according to the most recent version of the CCC.

The Church generally abhors war, but does beleive in the just war docterine.

The Church believes in the right to self defense and considers it a grave duty to protect innocent life, life of your family, etc.

To suggest that there is something wrong with carrying a gun for self defense is not in accord with the CCC. I’m not suggesting that the CCC suggests carrying a gun either. But it certainly does not forbid it, and it does suggest that we must protect/defend innocent life, in the form of self-defense in a very clear way.

🤷
 
TheOpenTheist said:
My favorite term is Anti-Profanity based upon what God said in Ezekiel 13:19.
Click to expand...
Just as an aside - that’s an interestingly different translation from that of the Tanakh. In the Tanakh 13:19 seems clearly part of an admonishment about false prophesy rather than about actually killing or not killing:
17 And you, O mortal, set your face against the women of your people, who prophesy out of their own imagination, prophesy against them [18] and say: Thus said the Lord God: Woe to those who sew pads on all arm-joints and make bonnets for the head of every person, in order to entrap! Can you hunt down lives among My people, while you preserve your own lives? [19] You have profaned My name among My people in return for handfuls of barley and morsels of bread; you have announced the death of persons who will not die and the survival of persons who will not live - lying to My people, who listen to your lies.
Click to expand...
JPS Tanakh 1985
Click to expand...
 
barbfromtucson said:
But when I question them about their views on the death penalty and the environment, I discover that they’re not 100% Pro-life.

Yes, I include the environment with it because the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. does have an effect on human life, both born and unborn.
Click to expand...
Yes, how is it that the Democrats can take such bizarre positions on the enviornment?

They vote nationally to cut pollution, but favor international agreements that allow China and other nations to be exempted from any pollution standards. Not only does it move the pollution to a different part of the world, it allows their economies to have lower prices, thus killing our jobs. THAT does NOT seem to show any REAL committment to the environment, nor does it show any compassion or justice to the American workers.

They vote to restrict hunting on a species by species basis, but the best government wildlife scientists we have in the Department of the Interior, Wildlife Departments, etc tell us that we need to control the populations of these species through hunting or they will over populate, die of starvation, disease, etc because the “natural predators” have been eliminated. They play the emotional “Bambi” politics while ignoring the real needs of the environment.

They vote to install regional emission standards that force gasoline refiners to create “botique fuels” for individual cities or regions, rather than to pass any sort of national comprehensive standard. This allows some areas to be more polluted, others less, and it forces the refiners to create special fuel formulas for cities like St Louis that are different from forumulas used in Chicago, thus driving up the cost of gasoline at the pump and, as has been demonstrated several times, regional shortages of fuel.
 
FightingFat said:
I think you make a very valid point Barbara! I find there is a terrible irony in people who support war, gun carrying (for self defense obviously) and capital punishment, but detest abortion and label themselves pro-life.
Click to expand...
If I believe in the right of self-defense against a murderer, does that make me “pro-death”?
If I believe a nation also has the right of self-defense (the “just war” principle) does that make me “pro-death”?
Why then is it “ironic” that I believe these things and yet believe that abortion, which is the killing of babies, is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top