When I ask why people are pro-life, they usually reply that abortion is murder and they are compassionately trying to save babies.
But delveing a bit deeper, the inconsistancies show through. For example, many anti-abortion people make exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Logically, if human life begins at conception, it is sacred human life no matter how it was conceived. It is even sacred human life if it has elevated risks of genetic wierdness.
When I bring that up, the standard repy is that the woman should not have to live with the product of a rape because of the emotional trauma involved with her and the child.
This often leads to “what I am really opposed to is when unmarried women use abortion as a form of birth control”. (evenven keeps herself from pointing out that many women that have abotions are married and are often using birth control) So in the end, pro-life often isnt about saveing fetuses, it’s about enforceing punishment for sex.
I have some quotes from a fundamentalist messege board to back me up…“I can also understand why a mother would have an abotion if she was raped, although I realize that this is rare as well for abortion cases. Most abotions are simply last chance birth controls for people who won’t take responsibility for their sin.” (see, it’s not about killing, it’s about taking responsiblity for sin)
“But we all know what the debate over abortion is really about. It’s about women who have sex outside of marriage. It’s a sin! Plain and simple!” (apparently women are the only ones that have sex outside of marriage)
So, what is it really about? Is it compassion for the unborn “child”, or doleing out bad consequences to women who choose to have sex outside of marriage?
Interesting points! Have you heard Bill Hicks responses to this topic? He mentions the ‘Pro-lifers who murder doctors!’ topic and also says that if pro-lifers were really committed, they shouldn’t just lock arms and block hospitals, they should lock arms and block cemetaries “She’s not coming in” “But she was 96 and got hit by a bus” “Too bad, no-one’s allowed to die on this planet”
There are plenty of reasons to be pro-life, some of them logically consistent, some not. Try not to describe an entire category of people that numbers in the millions (billions?) in such narrow terms. In attempting to shed light on the pro-life “bias,” you are showing your own.
For myself, I’ll say:
I am pro-life.
I am because I think it is reasonable to believe this entity prior to birth is human life, which deserves protection and respect.
Rape doesn’t change that fact, nor is it justification then for abortion. This is not to trivialize the genuine trauma a rape victim experiences, only to say that it doesn’t justify taking another’s life.
Abortion as birth control is repugnant to me only for the reasons cited above. Where abortion is not involved, no one needs anyone else’s permission to use whatever form of birth control his or her conscience allows.
I am of two minds on the subject. I think that abortions should be legal, that it’s none of the governments business.
I also believe that it is being used far too often as defacto birth control. Evensven said “many women that have abotions are married and are often using birth control”. While I’m sure that this is true, I’m also sure that ‘many’ does not mean a majority. My last girlfreind had 5, count 'em, 5 abortions before she met me.
I think that sexually active adults should take ALL the available precautions against unwanted pregnancy. Rights come with some responsibility attached. If the fellas wear them jimmy-hats every time and the wimenz take those pills everyday, then abortion will not be much of an issue.
I’m now a little confused on this subject. I used to very strongly believe in the right of a woman to choose. The idea that abortion is murder doesn’t sit well with me either. It criminalizes something that I’m not quite sure is a crime. The whole issure revolves around whether or not life begins at conception or when a fetus is mature enough to live outside of the womb. Logic tells me that it is the latter. But my feelings, having given birth twice, tell me that babies are indeed alive long before they are able to breath on their own. But since most abortions are performed long before a baby is even recognizable as a human being, they are often just a bundle of cells, then is it really taking a life?
What amazes me is that many pro-lifers support the death penalty. In politics I find this to be just silly. Traditional left-wing politics supports abortion but often does not support the death penalty. Traditional right-wing politics is just the opposite. I just don’t see how this stance can be reconciled. Kill them now or kill them later, what difference does it make? If it is not right for our government to legalize killing then it isn’t right for our government to legalize killing whether the life is just a few weeks old or many years old. Of course our government says right now it’s perfectly alright to kill both.
Needs to Know, death penalty and abortion are two very different issues, over and above the simplistic “taking of a life now or later”
abortion foes object to the taking of an “innocent life” which is not inconsistant with having no objections to the death penalty.
Freedom of Choice advocates view human life as beginning somewhere past the “cluster of cells” stage or believe that others may morally view it that way, so would object to forbidding abortions.
Objections to the death penalty come from people who believe that taking a life is ALWAYS wrong, people who object to state sponsored murder, people who object to the way it seems to target the poor and minority much more frequently than other prisoners, etc.
Blanket statements will get 'ya in trouble, Wring.
I happen to be pro-choice and against the death penalty. Two entirely different issues to me- Abortion: At what point does a life begin? The death penalty: Is it an effective deterrent to violent crime?
I’m one of those “common” people that objects to abortion but supports the death penalty.
The difference is that a fetus/baby/child that is aborted is denied an opportunity to live. The criminal that is executed has forfeited his “right to live”, usually by taking the live of another.
The part that I find most confusing is how a Christian religion can support abortion or dance around the issue to not condemn it. I recall attending an Episcopalian service some years ago where the sermon amounted to reading a letter from the church’s governing body. The letter said that the Episcopalian position was to not take a side in the issue – it would neither condemn abort nor endorse pro-life. (This appeared to be more a matter of appeasing the congregation than having a firm policy.)
The logic doesn’t jibe there either. Innocent life…well I do believe that 8 men were released from death row this year because DNA testing proved they could not have committed the crime. How many innocent lives have been lost this way in the past? There’s no real way to tell. I don’t see them as separate issues. If you’re going to call it murder then it’s governmentally sanctioned murder regardless of the circumstances. Don’t even bring the racial issue in because that complicates matters further. I’ve looked at far left racist websites (out of curiosity) that support abortion for especially for anyone that is black, brown, yellow or what they call a “mud” race. It would be interesting to know the statistical figures on race in regards to abortion. Think I might see if I can find something on that. We all already know the statistics for the death penalty. I just saw a news blurb on it yesterday, 48% of death row inmates or black.
For the record, I was not spouting off my personal beliefs, I was listing what I see as the common stances.
and
Ahem, C-note : please re read the post. after the snippet you clipped was a comma, not a period. as in: this** , and this, and this, and this, etc. **
Need2Know - the fact that some people on death row have been released after proving their innocence doesn’t alter argument those folks (note, I’m not saying I do) postulate. The “innocent” un-born, vs. the “guilty” (ie convicted) criminal is the position they take. And, as a matter of fact, those who favor the death penalty point out the same folks being released as “proof the system works” (“see, we didn’t execute THEM”).
Truth is I didn’t really address the OP as written. I can’t speak for pro-lifers the only ones I know are my sister and brother-in-law and their opinion comes directly from their pastor at church. Although I don’t think they personally feel banning abortion to be a form of punishment for sin. I’m think they feel more like it’s saving a baby. What will be done with this hypothetical baby after it is born I don’t know. I can’t discuss issues at all with my Bro cause he gets all heated and yells. I’m chuckling now because just a couple of weeks ago according to my Ma and both of my sisters, he and my mother got into it over this very subject and he got so mad he actually said “fuck”. The guy is never wrong. Which doesn’t bother me in the least. He’s a good man. And I’m not married to him. I did however tell my sister during a recent discussion about the upcoming election that it was Ok for her to vote her conscience. She didn’t have to vote the party line with her husband. It’s a secret ballot after all and her right. But then he is the head of the household and all that, she probably won’t go against him.
Like I stated at first, I’ve become undecided about how I feel on this issue. Naturally I do not feel that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. So when is it being used as such? Naturally the chick who’s had 5 needs to get on the shot. So how many is too many? One, two, does it make any difference if these two abortions take place years apart. What about the circumstances, which circumstances would make it OK? So a woman says she’s been raped, does the man have to be convicted of rape first or can she just claim she’s been raped? What if she “asked for it”? Don’t a lot of people still believe that many women put themselves at risk to be raped through their own behavior? Would she qualify then? These questions come to mind when you ask if an underlying part of the abortion question isn’t just about the taking of life but the punishment of sin.
The part that I am confused about is why a Christian religion has to make a big deal out of it at all!
I mean, the Bible itself shows that people guilty of harming a woman and her fetus get off a lot lighter than someone who murdered a living human being.
It never specifically says, “Killing thine unborn infant is a sin” anywhere to my knowledge.
I could see a pastor or priest, when privately counseling a member of their church who is debating what to do with their surprise pregnancy counseling against it, but I fail to see why Christians are somehow obligated to try and push their definition of when life begins on those who may not share this view, or that religion.
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, five days, 13 hours, 1 minute and 38 seconds.
6341 cigarettes not smoked, saving $792.71.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 1 day, 25 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I agree that the exception for rape and incest is not logically consistent, but I think that those who support the exemption do so either out of an emotional response and/or political expedience.
I am pro-life as are most of the people I know and we do not consider having a baby as punishment most people I know think of it as a blessing.
As I see it, there is no inconsistency in being in favor of the death penalty while opposing abortion on demand. The phrase, “Taking a life is ALWAYS wrong”, really means, “Any person’s taking of another person’s life, without legal justification for such an act, such as for self defense, act of a declared war, or capital punishment, is ALWAYS wrong.”
There are specific circumstances, namely wartime killing of the enemy, self defense and capital punishment, which are sanctioned by the state and/or by certain moralities, whereby taking a life isn’t wrong. To the extent pro-lifers argue that taking a life is always wrong, they are just wrong.
The fight over abortion is a political fight concerning whether or not the killing of a fetus falls into the category of being allowable killing, or prohibited killing. Generally, I think killing a fetus ought to be prohibited killing. Abortion lacks the exigent circumstances present in wartime killing or self defense killing. Abortion also is generally a unilateral decision, as opposed to capital punishment, which requires the approval of the prosecutor, jury, and appeals judges before going forward. I don’t think the status of being a pregnant woman confers on the pregnant woman the right to unilerally terminate the pregnancy. Abortion in the case of rape or incest though, in my mind is akin to self defense, and so should be allowable.
I oppose the killing of a person without their consent, either express or implied.
I have not seen a convincing argument that an embryo or fetus is a person in any meaningful sense of the word. Hence abortion is personal medical decision; there is only one person involved: the mother.
Euthenasia occurs with a person’s express consent. Killing in self-defense or in war occurs with the dead person’s implied consent. The issue of those who use their political authority to prosecute war is another matter for another thread.
Imposition of the death penalty obviously does not occur with the victim’s consent. Nor can it be termed self-defense; the victim is by defintion already incarcerated and therefore not an imminent threat.
All these deductions follow from the same premise. I do not believe even the wisest of has the necessary intelligence, judgement or information to impose death upon another person.
As to abortion, I will say again that I have never seen a convincing argument that a fetus is a person, deserving of individual rights. Consciousness and sentience, however fuzzily defined, seem the only basis on which to grant personhood; the rights of genes alone do not seem worthy of the coercion of even the smallest inconvenience.
This is not to dispute those who hold the personal belief that personhood begins at conception. Should a woman holding this belief become pregnant, I would oppose any attempt to coerce her into receiving an abortion, regardless of the circumstances.
Regardless of their apparent niceness, one who supports the criminalization of abortion is guilty of nothing less than attempting to impose by force his or her personal belief on others without convincing rational basis.
Yes, the wonders of the conservative Christian sects - birth control is bad, but when you have an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is bad. The message is that all sex is bad.
Sheesh. Can’t imagine why I’m not Christian… :rolleyes:
I have talked to a lot of people about the death penalty vs. abortion.
Most pro-death penalty people, when asked if they think they could flip the switch and fry a convicted murderer, respond with a quick “Sure, no problem !”
Most pro-abortion people, when asked if they think they could perform a late term abortion (assuming they were a doctor), respond with a quick “Oooh, no way !”
I’m thinking on the abortion issue is that the reason it’s so confused in Christian minds is the fact that a lot of churches avoid discussing it openly. Like the epispicopal thing mentioned earlier. I think the SBC mentioned something about a “reverence for all life” in their latest meeting in Florida, which might include a opposition to both abortion and the death penalty. But like I said, it just isn’t discussed a lot. I feel it should be.
Me: pro life AND opposed to the death penalty. In the Catholic church, this is referred to as a “consistent ethic of life” or the “seamless garment”.
There are a few political realities that intersect with this issue (rape, life of mother etc…). “I” would not have much of a problem making those kinds of exceptions…
I’m always amused at people who accuse people with a pro life position of trying to push their agenda on others…in other words, they typically say, “if you don’t want to have an abortion, fine…but don’t tell ME what to do”…as if pressing for moral agendas is such a rare thing…
This was an argument used by many slave holders during the 19th century…they were outraged that OTHER people who did not own slaves, and were not affected directly by the loss of slave labor were telling THEM what to do…certainly the civil rights workers in the 50s and 60s faced similar attitudes.
Or people who suported the E.R.A. …
Or people who want the Boy Scouts to accept (or not accept) homosexuals
If people want to debate the merits of access to abortion, or how to limit access, fine…But to say that people with a moral position shold not try to 'impose" that moral position on others is silly and naive.
Lastly, as convenient and clever as it might seem, it is not wise to lump all people who have pro life views into one neat tidy package and label them as right wing or fundamentalist…anymore than it would be correct to conclude that all civil rights proponents acted like Malcolm X, or that all Vietnam war protestors blew up campus buildings.
there are plenty of idiots who hold pro life views, and who justify murder under the sick shroud of their views…they are not me and I am not them…
Doctordec, I fail to grasp your point. Squeamishness differs from moral opposition. I would not kill a cow, yet I eat meat. This view is not a moral contradiction: I don’t find killing an animal for food to be morally wrong, merely icky. And it is commonly held that a normal third-trimester baby has the qualities necessary to develop sentience, and is therefore properly deserving of a degree of protection. Indeed, current law recognizes this philosophy.
I find incomprehensible the attitude of a person who would gleefully kill another person, regardless of the circumstances. If I were forced by extreme circumstances to take a person’s life (and I fervently hope such circumstances never arise), I certainly would not take pleasure in the action; rather, I would consider it profoundly disturbing and traumatic.
A “reverence for all life” (emphasis added) seems either logically inconsistent or devoid of meaning. A person eating a steak while fervently declaring his reverence for all life either displays obvious hypocrisy or a definition of “reverence” the cow might well dispute. And why should not an individual cell have “life” towards which we must be reverent? Does the surgeon commit murder when he removes my appendix? An arbitrary definition cannot claim moral superiority. An absolute definition renders ordinary existence impossible.
