Interestingly, you said the exact opposite of what you meant in the last paragraph, though we know what you mean. As to choosing the life of the embryo as more important than the life of the woman, this viewpoint isn’t widely held - certainly not as widely as the viewpoint that the life of the embryo is more important than the whim of the woman.
Mentally correcting your second paragraph, it’s not that a woman’s primary role is to bear children; it’s just that, having once begun the process of bearing any particular child, she ought not to toss it aside for any but the most compelling reasons.
Without quibbling over the semantics of theology, in this sense I believe we use “innocent life” in the sense of “this creature has not of itself done anything deserving of death.”
As was previously noted, I think you meant to say Pro-life.
Aside from the fact that that statement is of dubious veracity, if you look at things from a strictly scientific, non-religious viewpoint, I would say that the primary role* of any organism is to reproduce. Therefore the primary role of a woman is to bare children.
*Assuming, of course, that there are any roles at all. But if there are any in life, then reproduction has to be at the top-- you can’t have life without it.
She doesn’t need to bare children. We’re all born naked, wet and hungry. (Then things get worse.)
“Pro-choice” in this context distills down to “in favour of people being able to make those choices which I think it proper for them to be allowed to make”, which is a viewpoint with which few will actually disagree, but is a misleading label to apply to those who are in favour of one particular choice. I suppose the pro-lifer could say “…I just believe in one fewer choice than you do”.
In Holland, that is the exact official stance, and practically viable.
Abortion is legal, and/but the government does whatever it can to facilitate any choice a pregant woman makes. Sex-ed is mandatory in school, and girls have access to birth control even without parental consent through free clinics or through their own physician. The morning-after pill is sold over the counter. Abortion is offered as a financially, socially, health-wise (not dangerous) and morally acceptable choice. But so is the opposite; if a woman wants to keep her baby, she can get social or religious counseling, and practical help and enough welfare money so both she and her baby can live acceptably. Giving up the baby for adoption is also an option, but that one is chosen least often. Combined, this has led to Holland having the one of the lowest rate of abortions in the western world.
The same “freedom of choice” is applied to prostitution. Prostitution is legal, both for the prostitutes and their clients. Unions for sex-workers are encouraged. The police, however, prosecutes instances of forced prostitution. Human trafficing is illegal. In practice, the police doesn’t give as much priority as many would wish to prosecute pimps who exploit women against their will, so I can’t say forced prostitution of prostitution from women with an addcition doesn’t happen. But the law and the social circumstances are clear: a woman has the freedom to choose working as a prostitute, and she also has the freedom to chose NOT to work as one.
So** Liberal**, I for one think the analogy you present is a valid one.
Just because a person is pro choice doesn’t mean she is anti life. I am pro choice but appose the death penalty. I think pro life should be called anti abortion.
I’ll go one step further and state that I believe the state should subsidize abortion for poor women.
It seems that the people who are anti abortion are the same people who vote for the conservative right. The conservatives are generally apposed to the scant social services this country has that are designed to help poor children. Children are the number one recipient of welfare. Mentally ill men are on their own to fight for a spot on the side walk. There is no welfare for them.
The porn industry seems to be thriving, so women are free to sell their bodies, at least on film.
I didn’t think I would be so lucky as to have someone come into this thread and so ably demonstrate that a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic behind a pro-life stance is necessary in order to make the argument referenced in the OP. Thank you!
Except that not all — or even most — religious people believe in “original sin”.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but so long as Dutch people are forced to subsidize the social choices of others, wouldn’t you agree there is a severe lack of freedom to make financial choices?
I’m sure there are. But if I were a Christian, I don’t think I’d want to take the chance of having that debate with God after my death. I don’t know a way of determining when the soul enters the body, so it would seem that one should take the cautious approach.
I think the pro-life/pro-choice argument is complete bollocks (pun fully intended). Religion, morals, whatever have little to do with it. Just as some people want drugs, some women want abortions. Now we can either send them to the back-street abortionists with all the concommitant dangers, or let them have abortions openly and safely.
Well, like anything else, I imagine a Christian would have to check his/her Bible and interpret the findings in that particular edition. Last I checked, there’s support either way for both abortion.
Hmn…are you arguing that by having to pay taxes, people’s choices are dimished? So a true pro-choice person should not only be in favour of the right to abortion, AND the right to be a prostitute, but ALSO against taxes?
That is a truly consistently liberal viewpoint, in the classical sense that I understand liberal: against interference by the state whatsoever.
I guess Dutch culture argues that an individual’s freedoms are either curtailed by other individuals (the right of the fittest) or curtailed by the state. And that regulation by the state is preferable, as it is the States duty to curtail the power some individuals (in this case, clergy, pimps, doctors) have over weaker individuals (women).
I don’t believe that is true for the New Testament. And if there are arguments either way in the OT, once again I would think that the safer way would be the best choice. When in doubt, don’t kill. That saves you the difficulty of having to explain to God later that you just didn’t want to have the baby, so you killed the fetus. Now, if the life of the mother is in danger, that might make things different.
Since we are talking about two people’s immortal souls here, the inconvenience of a pregnancy pales in comparison. No?
I see your point - but which trapeze artist is free to explore all possibilities - the one with the net under her or the one with only the cold, hard ground?
As for me, during the bubble when I made more money and paid more taxes I didn’t feel my freedom was diminished in the least. YMMV.
I suppose you could put it that way. For myself, I would say simply that a consistent pro-choice position would allow people to choose for themselves what cause their labor will benefit.
I very much appreciate your pointing that out. Sometime around the mid 20th century, the term “liberal” as used in the US began to take on almost its complete opposite meaning. It got to the point by the late 20th century that “liberal” was a shunned term. Negative campaign ads would emphasize over and over that a person’s opponent is “liberal” on this and “liberal” on that. I suspect it had something to do with the chaos that the Democratic Party fell into around the Johnson Era. (Google Democratic Convention Chicago, for example.) Slowly, it seems to be returning to its normal meaning, which it holds in the rest of the world, of advocating for civil liberties and personal freedom. I’m doing my small part to help.
I think that is a perfect role for government. The strong should not be allowed to coerce the weak. Unfortunately, the State often becomes the Great Power and can exercise cruel coercions of its own. I liken it to leveling the playing field, as they say, for a soccer match by breaking the knees of the best players. I think that’s the wrong approach. All that should be done is to ensure a fair game for all participants, and no one should be forced to play. That’s how I, as a liberal, see it.
Please do me a favour and try better: that’s no debunking. Human nature is what it is. One only has to look at the past to show that it is true. Perhaps you’d like to consider the case of Ireland where until recently, women had to visit the U.K. to get safe abortions?
If I may respectfully request, let’s please stay on the topic of the analogy. Is it a matter of free choice versus sanctity of life really? I don’t think so, for the reasons I’ve stated. The terms are terrible misnomers, invented for their bumper sticker effects. I agree with simply “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” tags, with each side having a continuum from purists to exceptionalists.
