What is true meaning of "Pro-life"?

[vern_humphrey]

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?

The right to self-defense, both individual and collective, is inherent in the right to life. No one can honestly deny that.

 

[melensdad]

The right to self-defense, both individual and collective, is inherent in the right to life. No one can honestly deny that.

The Catechism is very clear that we are duty bound to defend innocent life. That includes our own lives in the form of self-defense.

I don’t know how someone can be a pro-life Catholic and be opposed to self-defense. It seems to me that any pro-life Catholic must, by definition, support the right to self-defense of him/herself, their family and their fellow man.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Catechism is very clear that we are duty bound to defend innocent life. That includes our own lives in the form of self-defense.

I don’t know how someone can be a pro-life Catholic and be opposed to self-defense. It seems to me that any pro-life Catholic must, by definition, support the right to self-defense of him/herself, their family and their fellow man.

It seems to me that those who take that position believe there is a duty to die – to sacrifice our own lives or those whom we have a duty to protect.

And that doesn’t make sense.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Catechism is very clear that we are duty bound to defend innocent life. That includes our own lives in the form of self-defense.

So, if innocent people get executed under our current criminal justice system, are you duty bound to defend them?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, if innocent people get executed under our current criminal justice system, are you duty bound to defend them?

We are duty bound to defend the innocent, period – regardless of whether they are sentenced to execuition or not.

 

[melensdad]

So, if innocent people get executed under our current criminal justice system, are you duty bound to defend them?

One would presume that we are to follow the teachings of the Church on this issue. As I read it, we are required to defend all innocent life.

Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it appears that in most western civilizations the use of the death penalty is neither reasonable nor appropriate under most circumstances. The CCC is very clear that it allows for SOME use of the death penalty. It also seems very clear that the legitimate use of the death penalty is very rare in a modern civil society.
vern humphry:

It seems to me that those who take that position believe there is a duty to die – to sacrifice our own lives or those whom we have a duty to protect.

And that doesn’t make sense.

I believe you are totally correct, it does not make sense. The Church clearly teaches, in the Catechism, that it is our duty to defend ourselves. In fact it is our “grave” duty. That would make it a sin to not fight back. Again, we are talking about the protection of innocent life. If an aggressor is attacking us, we must protect ourselves. People who do not believe that should buy a copy of the CCC, I keep one on my bed table. Its pretty dry reading, but very enlightening, and contains a huge amount of common sense too.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

"melensdad:

The Catechism is very clear that we are duty bound to defend innocent life. That includes our own lives in the form of self-defense.

So, if innocent people get executed under our current criminal justice system, are you duty bound to defend them?

We are duty bound to change or stop a system which convicts, and executes innocent people. It is highly likely todays system is better than any past system, that is not to say it is good enough. One of the reasons many Catholics oppose the death penelty is this issue, however that does not constrain the actual Church teaching, which does allow the death penelty

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are duty bound to change or stop a system which convicts, and executes innocent people. It is highly likely todays system is better than any past system, that is not to say it is good enough. One of the reasons many Catholics oppose the death penelty is this issue, however that does not constrain the actual Church teaching, which does allow the death penelty

As I have pointed out before, death penalty cases are the best justice we have. By that I mean there are safeguards in death penalty cases – such as automatic appeals – that persons facing lesser sentences do not have.

If we are convicting innocent people in death penalty cases, how many more innocent people are we convicting in lesser cases?

The conclusion must be, if innocent people are being put to death, the Emperor has no clothes! The whole system is rotten from top to bottom.

If that’s what we believe, we are morally impelled not to simply stop executions, and let thousands of innocent people languish in prison under horrible conditions – but to fix the system completely.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As I have pointed out before, death penalty cases are the best justice we have. By that I mean there are safeguards in death penalty cases – such as automatic appeals – that persons facing lesser sentences do not have.

If we are convicting innocent people in death penalty cases, how many more innocent people are we convicting in lesser cases?

The conclusion must be, if innocent people are being put to death, the Emperor has no clothes! The whole system is rotten from top to bottom.

If that’s what we believe, we are morally impelled not to simply stop executions, and let thousands of innocent people languish in prison under horrible conditions – but to fix the system completely.

Maybe, maybe not
Does the person who speeds the most get the most tickets? Should we stop giving all tickets because the cop choses who to stop? I say No. We have all seen rich people ( OJ, Robert Blake) be cleared of trials which would have convicted and quite probably sent a poor person to death row. Errored conviction is a serious problem. We do not have to compound the errored conviction by executing the convicted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe, maybe not
Does the person who speeds the most get the most tickets? Should we stop giving all tickets because the cop choses who to stop? I say No.

Let me offer a few points:

1. A ticket is not a conviction. You can choose to pay a fine and not appear in court, but you have the right to a trial.
2. The issue is not tickets given, but tickets (or criminal charges) where the person is truly innocent.

If we find a case where cops are giving innocent people tickets in large numbers and the courts are railroading the people ticketed (as in Loudovici, Georgia a few decades back), yes, we have an obligation to put a stop to that.

We have all seen rich people ( OJ, Robert Blake) be cleared of trials which would have convicted and quite probably sent a poor person to death row.

Those two cases are false negatives – convicting and executing an innocent man is a false positive.

Errored conviction is a serious problem. We do not have to compound the errored conviction by executing the convicted.

But by not fixing the system, we do compound the error.

If the system is that rotten, we can’t just stop all executions and sweep all the other false convictions under the rug.

 

[SoCalRC]

One would presume that we are to follow the teachings of the Church on this issue. As I read it, we are required to defend all innocent life.

Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it appears that in most western civilizations the use of the death penalty is neither reasonable nor appropriate under most circumstances. The CCC is very clear that it allows for SOME use of the death penalty. It also seems very clear that the legitimate use of the death penalty is very rare in a modern civil society.

I would personally agree with your interpretation. I asked the question because it helps remind us that the practice incurs some collateral damage. I know a GOP gov. took a lot of heat for commuting a bunch of death sentences to life in prison, but when you look at the evidence of systemic failure he was responding to, it is hard for me to see what else he could do.

 

[SoCalRC]

If we are convicting innocent people in death penalty cases, how many more innocent people are we convicting in lesser cases?

That is a very valid point, and one that the USCCB has raised several times. It also helps explain why different segments of the population have completely different impressions of the fairness of our criminal justice system.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

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:

I believe the NKJV translation that I referenced is more accurate.

Also, God has in other passages referred to killing the innocent and letting murderers live as profane or as polluting the land. Profane in Ezek 13:19 can also be translated “pollute” (Num 35:33 is a good example).

 

[Reepicheep]

It seems to me that those who take that position believe there is a duty to die – to sacrifice our own lives or those whom we have a duty to protect.

And that doesn’t make sense.

On what grounds does it not make sense?
That I might have a duty to sacrifice my own life in defence of others does not in any way suggest to me that my life is less precious than theirs.
In any case " a duty to (risk or) sacrifice my life" is not the same thing as “a duty to die”. The duty is to defend the innocent, whatever it costs me, rather than specifically to die for that purpose… If I find another way to protect the lives of those I defend - a way that does not require my death - I am free to live.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is a very valid point, and one that the USCCB has raised several times. It also helps explain why different segments of the population have completely different impressions of the fairness of our criminal justice system.

Then it seems to me that we should focus our efforts on revamping the justice system en toto.

From the little experience I have with the prison system, I believe we can never completely eliminate the death penalty and protect society – but the application of the death penalty should be rare.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

I’m not religious but I identify myself as pro-life.

I’m anti-abortion and anti hormonal contraception because of the possibility of abortion and because I think it’s the worst thing to happen to women in modern history. I consider myself a feminist, and fail to see how chemically altering our bodies so that men can more easily satisfy their sexual desires is empowering.

I’m anti-euthanasia, anti war, and anti death penalty. I don’t believe any war can or is a just one. It’s such an asinine concept - let’s use unique, precious human beings as cannon fodder, and the side with the most toys left at the end/smaller pile of dead bodies wins But I blame governments, not the soldiers. Soldiers fighting in active battle seems to me to be self-defense - they’re actively protecting themselves from being killed, and if that results in someone else dying, it’s terrible, but unavoidable.

I think people should have as many kids as they can handle, believe animals should be treated with respect and dignity but are not equal to humans, am a tree-hugging environmentalist, and have zero problem with homosexuals.

In my experience, the people who identify as pro-life, and are anti-abortion/pro-death penalty tend to be Christians. All the anti-abortion, anti-death penalty people I’ve come across in real life have been of the atheist/agnostic/wiccan variety, and I wonder if it’s because of the Old Testament, and the whole love of smiting God had going on back then.