It's a convenient way of demonizing all on your side without having to address
your philosophical position. It's clever....whatever is being done to support
the new parents & infant won't be enuf, & you personally cannot change this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unbreaking American Hearts
- Thread starter ZooGirl02
- Start date
your philosophical position. It's clever....whatever is being done to support
the new parents & infant won't be enuf, & you personally cannot change this.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
You are right that the argument is an easy way to demonize all on my side of the issue. That is another reason why I don't like it. There is also the fact that it is not true. Countless churches across the nation have programs aimed at helping mothers to raise their children and there are countless charities out there that provide help to mothers to raise their children as well. Many of these charities and church programs are pro-life.
I understand that many pro-lifers are pro-life after the kid is born too.
Good luck getting it acknowledged in an issue as polarized as this one.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
Yes, many pro-lifers such as myself are pro-life after the child is born as well.
That said, I subscribe to the Consistent Life Ethic which means that I am against abortion, the death penalty, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and any other attack on the dignity of human life.
We're on the opposite side of many fences, and yet you haven't called me a "poopy head" yet.
Time to step up your game!
(I oppose the death penalty because verdicts are too sloppy, & sentences must be commutable.)
Planets and the Sun
Member
Euthanasia is not an attack on human life. In 99% of cases non-voluntary euthanasia is actually illegal, so when people talk about euthanasia they are usually talking about euthanasia with the patient's consent (through writing a will or stating it in some way). It's the patient's decision to die. I'd personally prefer to have that option for myself if I ever want to take it.
It's also a bit idealistic to assume that charities alone (and why church charities? Not everyone is a Christian) are enough to get people a good quality of life. Maybe your local priest has won the lottery, if so congrats, but this is hardly the case where I live.
Also, it's not just about material things but psychological ones too. Rape can have very traumatizing and long-lasting consequences (including PTSD) on people, it's just not the best state to be in when raising a kid, much less one that resulted from that rape. Additionally, you can't possibly know the life circumstances of everyone who gets an abortion. If a young girl is being raped on a regular basis by her father and gets pregnant, do you think that's a good environment for a child? If so, there's something very, very wrong with you.
Not just that, but abortion is often medically recommended. Why? Because sometimes it's a matter of choosing between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn fetus. Sometimes a fetus may not even survive for very long after birth and would just agonize for hours in pain after being born.
You have the right to choose to not abort if you ever get pregnant, but it's unfair to try to impose your views on people, especially people who are probably in much worse circumstances than you ever will be.
EDIT:
Exactly, this post sums it up. It's not really "help" to make things worse for someone.
P.S.: I'm not American but this seems to have turned into a general conversation on anti-choice vs. pro-choice.
Last edited:
I don't think reducing the number of CPC's is a good idea. But my biggest criticism of these centers are that they aren't medical facilities, and that they don't provide full range of medical services for pregnant women who feel they have nowhere else to go.
Some have been starting to employ a nurse staff and to screen for STD's. But they also are funded heavily by state governments (which ironically is a criticism that Planned Parenthood gets from pro-life groups). If tax dollars are to go to centers that exist to support a woman maintaining a pregnancy, then it's more responsible to have a fully-staffed, trained, and medically supported facility.
I am concerned with the medical ethics of many of these centers, too, as it has been claimed that centers spread false information regarding risks in surgical abortion procedures.
My other quibble I have with these centers is that it relies on proselytizing for specific religious beliefs, so women who are not religious, and are on the fence about the ethics of terminating a pregnancy, arrive at these centers facing heavy-handed religious proselytizing. These tactics are ones that women who are religious, but who do not share in a conservative Christian belief system, must spend part of their time choosing to keep a pregnancy while reading and hearing Bible verses during their stay.
I wish people would stop using smear terms like "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion". It's rude and doesn't help the conversation at all. That's why it's a waste of time to debate abortion because everyone gets all emotional and start in with insults.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
Hahaha, I think you're pretty nice Revoltingest! I see no reason to call you a "poopy head".
I use "pro-abortion" for my own views because it's most accurate.
But I agree that civility should be the goal.
I'll see if I can give you reason.Hahaha, I think you're pretty nice Revoltingest! I see no reason to call you a "poopy head".
Alceste
Vagabond
Getting an education, a career that supports you comfortably and a reliable partner before you start a family is better than being a single welfare mom.
Alceste
Vagabond
Nobody is pro-abortion, but those who want to take it off the table as a safe, legal option for women are firmly against a pregnant woman's right to choose if and when she wants to start or grow a family. It's a far more accurate term than "pro-life". I'm not going to stop using it, sorry. I can't use "pro-life" with a straight face when people are claiming a life as a single welfare mom is better than choosing not to start a family.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I find "pro-life" to be an acceptable label for people who oppose abortion who have actually adopted babies who were unwanted or whose mothers were not able to care or provide for their them. If you want people to have babies they can't take care of, then unless you're willing to take on the responsibility of raising them, then your "pro-life" stance is nothing more than hot air.
Alceste
Vagabond
If they are going to be called pro-life, I should be referred to as pro-quality-of-life.
I use the term "anti-choice" for two reasons:
- the term "pro-life" is often inaccurate, since being against abortion does not necessarily imply that the person is actually "pro-life" in any meaningful sense.
- I think that the term "anti-abortion" also doesn't really capture the anti-choice position, since "anti-abortion" could also include people who are actually pro-choice (e.g. people who wouldn't choose an abortion themselves but don't oppose it being legal).
An anti-abortion person who wants to reduce the number of abortions by using proper sex ed and contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is my ally. An anti-abortion person who wants to constrain the freedom of women is not.
It's only the anti-choice people who I take objection to. If anti-choice people find a term that accurately describes their position to be distasteful, then they ought to reconsider their position.
In fact, a few of these programs made the news recently. And at many of them, the majority of children under their care didn't die from neglect! Impressive!
... and they always acted with the deepest respect for life:
The truth behind Ireland’s dead babies scandal
Alceste
Vagabond
Sure, I take it as a given that we all want to reduce the prevalence of abortion. The disagreement is whether we should do this by providing competent sex education and easy access to birth control, or by constraining the freedoms of women to make family planning decisions and shaming them for the dirty business that got them pregnant in the first place.
I'm not familiar with the Consistent Life Ethic. But it sounds like a great improvement over many so called pro life ethics. When a so called prolifer supports proDeath policies concerning everything from capital punishment and preemptive war to environmental destruction and providing health/ nutrition/ literacy service to little kids around the planet I get disgusted. That isn't prolife, it's just antiabortion. Not at all Pro-Life as I see, hardcore that I am
Tom
As long as people continue to use smear terms and caricatures of their opponents in the argument, respectful discussion will continue to elude us. As you wish.