Is it a contradiction for one person to take a Pro-Life position in the abortion debate while also supporting some kind of euthanasea?
I suspect that it is not always a contradiction, but I am more interested in seeing opinions of people who actually hold the premises they argue from.
There are different forms of Pro-Life and different forms of euthanasea. I ask that anyone arguing for a contradiction keep that in mind.
~Max
Nitpick: It’s spelled “euthanasia.” As in, anime characters.
Seriously, yeah … given the ubiquity of spell-check options, it’s weird to repeatedly misspell a word and suggests that one has not done any significant reading about a particular topic.
To the question: is it a contradiction to be pro-life and supportive of euthanasia? I can imagine consistent points of view in this regard, though it depends on the contexts in which you support euthanasia. A fetus has no say in the matter. A terminally ill adult who begs their partner to help them die has agency. Certainly one could construct a moral argument around those differences.
As for me, I’m pro-choice and pro-euthanasia, with appropriate understanding of the subtleties involved in both cases.
There is no such thing as “Pro life”. They are in no way shape or form in favor of human life.
“Pro-life” is anti-abortion and anti-women. That is all it is.
I don’t know if this is the proper place to post this. But I do think ‘pro-life’ is inconsistent with pro-capital punishment. Think about it.
It’s also rather anti-Sermon on the Mount (and I think most pro-death penalty people are Christians, or so they say).
Yeah the Catholic Church has started to see this. But that might be 2000 years too late 
.
This would be a bit of a hijack, yes. But the pro-life stance is generally against taking innocent life. They have no qualms about executions of criminals or wars that kill millions of enemy combatants (assuming it’s a just war.)
As for euthanasia - yes, they are generally against it too, but this time under a different argument, that it is taking life into one’s own hands and one shouldn’t.
I disagree - if someone is pro-life, anti-abortion, and also anti-capital punishment I’d say that’s a consistent outlook and ethical stance that could be described as “pro-life”. Bonus points if also vegan.
Probably not a common stance, though. As you note, many who claim to be pro-life are also pro state executions.
Isn’t it inconsistent to be okay with euthanizing a dog or horse, but leave gran to suffer while she dies of cancer, against her specific wishes?
If you don’t want your beloved pet to suffer, why is it okay for gran to be denied?
(Also, there is no ‘pro life’, call it what it is, ANTI Abortion, anti women’s body autonomy.)
No such thing as innocent life, original sin and all that stuff.
Pro-life is not the same thing as anti-abortion. The pro-life movement does oppose abortion, but it also opposes euthanasia, capital punishment, and war. The people who oppose abortion but do not oppose those other things, who are unfortunately very common, are not pro-life.
If by “has started to”, you mean “since before Roe v Wade”, yes.
It can be consistent as free will can play a part of it, in that if one believes human life is sacred (one possible reason to be prolife), one might conclude that the person once fully a adult would have to make that free will decision, it is a decision between them and their god and thus to be honored, or that goes against the sacred nature of human life by removing from humanity that free will decision.
There is a interesting dichotomy on this as some believe the worldly sin happens when the child enters the world - attaches to the flesh body, not at conception. The human body, and thus attachment to the original sin via attachment to human flesh, doesn’t become inhabited till birth/the first breath/ and sometimes the quickening but that last one is in utero. Before this time, and I understand a typical jewish belief, the fetus is part of the woman’s body Thus it is possible to be pro life and pro right to abortion, or even pro abortion.
You know the most pro-life thing a Christian can do is stop having children! Stop the pipeline to hell and eternal torture and suffering.
“Pass your final days in our eldercare facility on the southwest Florida coast, with its own private beach and cabanas. You’ll love Euthanasea!”
Mmm, maybe not.
As for the OP, strictly speaking the “artificial” taking of life would seem incompatible with a “pro-life” position, so euthanasia and the death penalty are out. People are quite capable of reconciling conflicting philosophies however.
Except, and let me make this clear- “Pro-life” does not mean they are pro-life. Not at all, not in the slightest.
I suppose there could be some with the ethics you mention, but the number is tiny.
That is the official position of the Catholic Church - an institution I have disagreement with, but hey, they’re consistent at least in this area (these days - in the past not so much). Of course we all know that the Catholic Church and many American Catholics have their differences as well.
Large overlap, to be sure, but some pro-life advocates accept euthanasia, so long as it’s clearly the free and informed will of the person who is suffering from some ailment that destroys any “quality of life.”
One can say, “That baby has its own life and you can’t touch it,” and at the same time say, “This is your own life and you may do with it what you want” without hypocrisy. It just doesn’t seem to happen often.
I don’t usually disagree with you, but I here I have to draw the line. You mean the church of the Crusades; the church of the Inquisition; the church whose official representative said, “Kill them all and let God sort it out”?
Let’s be fair: today’s Catholic Church is very, very different from what it was centuries ago. Bloody Mary was conventional then, but could not be today.
To which I would have replied, if Trinopus hadn’t gotten there first:
Today, right now, the Catholic Church’s official position is anti-abortion, life-begins-at-conception pro-life as well as anti-capital punishment prolife. I even acknowledged this change in my post, but you seemed content to blow past that.
Whether or not the Church’s position will remain that I have no way to know, just that at present they are consistent.