You say you're pro-life, but do you mean it?

[JanieDough]

It may be easy for us to say we would never, and others shouldn't, etc.

But really - do you just say this?

Why do polls show more Americans calling themselves "pro-life" without a corresponding increase in the belief that abortion is morally wrong?

 

[itsmeJonB]

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are just labels

No one is against life, and no one is against a womans right to choose, the issue is abortion and should be renamed

 

[Dana]

I'm pro choice.

 

[cam elle toe]

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are just labels

No one is against life, and no one is against a womans right to choose, the issue is abortion and should be renamed

Well said Dex:clap

 

[Azazel]

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm pro life, I only believe in killing other humans in war or in self defense.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm pro life, I only believe in killing other humans in war or in self defense.

Is this a tongue-in-cheek statement? It made me smile.

I'm pro-life in that people today should be responsible enough to avoid accidental pregnancy in the first place.
I'm pro-choice in that I want abortions to be an option for early pregnancy, don't want the government involved in a woman's decision, it is her body, and historically like it or not, until a baby is viable on it's own, it has no rights. And when it comes down to the life of the mother or the baby, when given the choice husbands usually choose the mother. Should it be any other way?

Regarding labels, this would make me pro-choice. I've noticed that there is a group of people who spout pro-life, but regardless of the circumstances surrounding a child could care less about it after it is born.

 

[hart]

Is this a tongue-in-cheek statement? It made me smile.

I'm pro life in that people today should be responsible enough to avoid accidental pregnancy in the first place.
I'm pro choice in that I don't want the government involved in a woman's decision, it is her body, and historically like it or not, until a baby is viable on it's own, it has no rights. And when it comes down to the life of the mother or the baby, when given the choice husbands usually choose the mother. Should it be any other way?

:homo: Couldn't have said it better myself...:clap with the caveat, if it comes down to a choice of mother and baby the MOTHER should make the choice if able.

 

[Minor Axis]

:homo: Couldn't have said it better myself...:clap with the caveat, if it comes down to a choice of mother and baby the MOTHER should make the choice if able.

Agreed.

 

[Peter Parka]

Is this a tongue-in-cheek statement? It made me smile.

No. Why?

 

[Accountable]

From the article:

It would be good if the poll had a question asking people to pick one of these 4 categories:

1. abortion is morally wrong and should be banned or severely restricted
2. abortion is not morally wrong and should not be banned or severely restricted
3. abortion is morally wrong but it should be not be banned or severely restricted
4. abortion is not morally wrong but it should be banned or severely restricted​

I'm saying I understand — and I personally agree with — #3. And I don't think the poll shows an increase in #3. I think #4 is the strangest idea, and the Gallup results look as though it is the increasing category. Since that is unlikely, I'm inclined to accept Gallup's hypothesis that the label "pro-life" has become more popular — at least when answering questions asked by pollsters.

This brings up the question: should we have laws of morality?
I say no. We should have laws to protect rights, regardless if any individual deems them moral or immoral. "Moral" is too ambiguous a term.

It's too bad that secularists who tout science in every other situation have chosen to define human life as the once-religious view of the body drawing breath ... unless of course it comes to convicting a person of murder when he attacks a pregnant woman and causes her to "lose" the baby.

Even the definition of human life takes on a political stench in today's society. It's really sickening.

 

[edgray]

This brings up the question: should we have laws of morality?
I say no. We should have laws to protect rights, regardless if any individual deems them moral or immoral. "Moral" is too ambiguous a term.

It's too bad that secularists who tout science in every other situation have chosen to define human life as the once-religious view of the body drawing breath ... unless of course it comes to convicting a person of murder when he attacks a pregnant woman and causes her to "lose" the baby.

Even the definition of human life takes on a political stench in today's society. It's really sickening.

I'm with you on this one. Morals are a lot more personal than people think, they vary for everyone so are simply far too ambiguous to form laws around.

If you're talking about rights, on the other hand, it might be easy for a pro-lifer to argue the rights of the unborn child...

Personally, I'm pro-choice. I do believe that abortion is used too often as a form of contraception, but I do think that it's the woman's choice to decide whether or not to have the baby.

 

[Minor Axis]

No. Why?

Because the term pro-life usually surrounds unborn babies, my first impression you were being funny by adding the disclaimers. Ok, never mind.

It's too bad that secularists who tout science in every other situation have chosen to define human life as the once-religious view of the body drawing breath ... unless of course it comes to convicting a person of murder when he attacks a pregnant woman and causes her to "lose" the baby.

Here is a clump of cells that eventually will turn into a viable human being.
Go back one more step and here is a sperm and egg that could turn into a viable human being.

These things are a live but they are not viable human beings. Should their rights be equal to that of the mother or the father? Viability has been the standard for having any rights under the law.

 

[Accountable]

Here is a clump of cells that eventually will turn into a viable human being.
Go back one more step and here is a sperm and egg that could turn into a viable human being. You're right. The first one will turn into a viable human being, but it already is a human being. The second one could turn into a viable human being, but it is not human yet - similar to a button and thread not yet being a shirt.

These things are a live but they are not viable human beings. Should their rights be equal to that of the mother or the father? YES!

Viability has been the standard for having any rights under the law. 'Fraid not, friendo. Viability is used when convenient and discarded when inconvenient. For one example among many, a person on life support is not viable, yet has rights.

 

[Minor Axis]

'Fraid not, friendo. Viability is used when convenient and discarded when inconvenient. For one example among many, a person on life support is not viable, yet has rights.

The person on life support was born. The clump of cells is not yet a developed human. What about all the embryos that are tossed on a regular basis? You think they should have the same rights as the guy on life support. I disagree.

 

[Accountable]

The person on life support was born. So now we're not talking about viability but birth? Be careful not to lose your shoe slogging around this quagmire

The clump of cells is not yet a developed human. But human, nonetheless. DNA tests would prove it.

What about all the embryos that are tossed on a regular basis? You think they should have the same rights as the guy on life support. I disagree.

Of course you do. To accept what is self-evident would be incredibly inconvenient, wouldn't it? Doctors would have to be far more careful when helping couples become pregnant. Researchers wouldn't be able to fertilize human eggs for their stem cells then destroy them.

Incredibly inconvenient.

 

[Minor Axis]

Researchers wouldn't be able to fertilize human eggs for their stem cells then destroy them.

Incredibly inconvenient.

You need to get with the times. They don't need embryos to create stem cells anymore. Ok, so we are having the classic abortion- prolife debate. I see no resolution here.

 

[Thornless]

I wouldn't hold it against someone or get in their face about abortion, I might ask if they've considered or know about other options, but in the end, it's their choice.

There's only a few circumstances I would consider it myself.

 

[hart]

I wouldn't hold it against someone or get in their face about abortion, I might ask if they've considered or know about other options, but in the end, it's their choice.

There's only a few circumstances I would consider it myself.

:homo:

 

[Accountable]

You need to get with the times. They don't need embryos to create stem cells anymore. Ok, so we are having the classic abortion- prolife debate. I see no resolution here.

Actually we're not, but it's understandable if you're nervous. Feel free to hang onto your Dark Ages definition of life so long as it's convenient, and step into the present as it suits you.