What does 'Pro-Life' mean?

[But]

But why even be called pro-life when you advocate for exceptions in rape, etc? The means of conception does not change the fact that that is "life", correct?

[Nickabeth]

I suppose that I'm one of the few pro-lifers who tries to be in all aspects. Vegetarian, social services supporting, and pro-peace.

See, I can respect you more than I can respect either pro-choice veg(etari)ans or pro-lifers who support war and indiscriminate death penalties. You're not being a hypocrite.

Neither are pro-choice vegans, they being the only ones to oppose commodifying sentient beings in both the case of the state mandating women as incubators, or non-human animals as human food/clothing/entertainment/etc.

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice.

[Page]

Welfare spending =/= pro-life. That is not concerning the acts of killing.

In my opinion, a state allowing human beings born into it to likely end up in the prison system, as drug addicts, or thrown into an imperialist war is as unethical as a state which forces abortions.

[Nickabeth]

See, I can respect you more than I can respect either pro-choice veg(etari)ans or pro-lifers who support war and indiscriminate death penalties. You're not being a hypocrite.

Neither are pro-choice vegans, they being the only ones to oppose commodifying sentient beings in both the case of the state mandating women as incubators, or non-human animals as human food/clothing/entertainment/etc.

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice. Likening opposition to abortion to opposing war is akin to hand-wringing over anti-tapeworm medication.

[NERVUN]

If you ask Bluth, what we consider pro-life are freedom hating pro-death people, and anyone who supports abortion is the true pro-life.

I like his views, even if I don't agree.

Bluth is full of shit, he can't even socialism right.

Bluth is not the topic of the thread, nor does he need personal attacks. Given your history however, it would seem that you need some time off to re-read the rules. *** One day ban for flamebaiting ***.

Bluth is hilariously out of touch with reality on all fronts.

Same as above, *** Warned for flamebaiting ***.

[Nickabeth]

See, I can respect you more than I can respect either pro-choice veg(etari)ans or pro-lifers who support war and indiscriminate death penalties. You're not being a hypocrite.

Neither are pro-choice vegans, they being the only ones to oppose commodifying sentient beings in both the case of the state mandating women as incubators, or non-human animals as human food/clothing/entertainment/etc. They are both grounded in a moral precept of autonomy, or self-ownership/agency.

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice. Likening opposition to abortion to opposing war is akin to hand-wringing over anti-tapeworm medication.

[Nickabeth]

See, I can respect you more than I can respect either pro-choice veg(etari)ans or pro-lifers who support war and indiscriminate death penalties. You're not being a hypocrite.

Neither are pro-choice vegans, they being the only ones to oppose commodifying sentient beings in both the case of the state mandating women as incubators, or non-human animals as human food/clothing/entertainment/etc. They are both grounded in a moral precept of autonomy, or self-ownership/agency.

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice. Likening opposition to abortion to opposing war is akin to hand-wringing over anti-tapeworm medication. Any opposition to suffering as a fundamental worldview would necessitate both veganism and support for reproductive freedom.

[America Resurgent]

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice. Likening opposition to abortion to opposing war is akin to hand-wringing over anti-tapeworm medication. Any opposition to suffering as a fundamental worldview would necessitate both veganism and support for reproductive freedom.

Not entirely true. While fetuses certainly don't start out sentient, by around 6 months in they're developed enough to have a baby's level of consciousness.

[Oppressorion]

In my mind, sentience only matters in a one-or-the-other situation. If at all possible, existing life should be preserved for as long as it wishes to.

[Fintanland]

I suppose that I'm one of the few pro-lifers who tries to be in all aspects. Vegetarian, social services supporting, and pro-peace.

Ah, the so-called Consistent Life Ethic. While I do not agree with it, it is at least not hypocritical, like too many other so-called pro-lifers. So, respect, I guess.

[Oppressorion]

I suppose that I'm one of the few pro-lifers who tries to be in all aspects. Vegetarian, social services supporting, and pro-peace.

Ah, the so-called Consistent Life Ethic. While I do not agree with it, it is at least not hypocritical, like too many other so-called pro-lifers. So, respect, I guess.

As I understand it, the Consistent Life Ethic only applies to humans and opposes suicide, both of which I do not ascribe to.

EDIT: And before any smart alecs get on here, micro-organisms and plants are excluded on the basis of 'me-or-them', which does not apply to animals as they take priority over less sentient lifeforms. Neither does this mean that I support overcrowding - I support a voluntary lowering of birth rates to preserve life in the long run.

EDIT2: Also note that I said 'pro-peace', not 'pacifist'. This is because I am not a pacifist - I accept that in some cases war is necessary to preserve more lives or freedom (stopping the Holocaust through WWII, for example, (This is not a perfect example as the war started for different reasons and full details did not come out until quite late. However, if you assume that the war was just for the Holocaust, that would be a good example of a justified war in my eyes.)).

[Nickabeth]

Plus, fetuses are not sentient, unlike the vast majority of animals. It's perfectly consistent from a utilitarian view, at least, to be vegan and pro-choice. Likening opposition to abortion to opposing war is akin to hand-wringing over anti-tapeworm medication. Any opposition to suffering as a fundamental worldview would necessitate both veganism and support for reproductive freedom.

Not entirely true. While fetuses certainly don't start out sentient, by around 6 months in they're developed enough to have a baby's level of consciousness.

So, months and months after 99% of abortions occur.
Even in cases of unambiguous sentience- let's say an adult human, no one ever seems to assert a "right" to parasitism.

[Lumierea]

"Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" are both nonsense terms used by both sides to try to frame the debate. It's just a way to make an opinion on the issue sound prettier and more agreeable. This inevitably happens with almost any debate, though the extent to which it has happens in the abortion debate does seem to stick out as a particularly egregious example.

Almost everyone likes to think of themselves as "Pro Life". After all, if they weren't "Pro Life", then they must be pro death! Death is bad!

Almost everyone also likes to think of themselves as "Pro Choice". After all, if they aren't "Pro Choice", then they must be anti-choice, which means anti-freedom in general! Freedom is good!

"Freedom good!" and "Death bad!" are what is implicitly being said when these terms are used.

Of course, while I think that pro choice is generally a somewhat more accurate term for describing the views of people who are for legalizing abortion than pro life is for for people who are against it, when taken to their logical conclusions both phrases are ridiculous.

Almost no one is "Pro Choice" in general in practice. If you are against any kind of behavior at all, like murder or theft, then you are against those choices. In the same respect, if you take antibiotics you're pretty anti-life, at least for microbes anyway. I also think that most (though of course not all) people also support the idea of killing in self defense if it is absolutely necessary, and many pro-lifers approve of capital punishment and eat meat. In fact, if you push the phrases to their furthest possible extremes they are flat out contradictions of themselves. "Pro Choice" could both refer to a dictators choice to ban something or another individuals choice to do that thing. Pro life, like in the bacteria vs antibiotics case, is a pretty impossible position to have unless you are some kind of autotroph or grant exceptions.

(Note: That's not to say that you can't believe that some life forms take priority over others and be pro life only when it comes to those life forms, but that isn't really "Pro Life" in the purest sense. It's a pro life position when it comes to those specific life forms and so pro life is still a rather vague and inaccurate term to describe that position... unless you have a different definition of "life" I suppose. Furthermore, I strongly doubt people would actually use the term "Pro Life" to describe such a position on their own unless they were doing it to make that idea sound more attractive to other people.)

In the end, the phrases don't apply in general as philosophical principles for most people because they are being used to specifically refer to the life of a fetus and the choice of a prospective mother to terminate it. In that context it mostly makes sense, however, the phrases aren't specific and so are easy to mock, not because they are always wrong or silly when used in the proper context but because the agenda behind the phrases is so transparent and intellectually dishonest. Both of these phrases are so vague that they always need modifiers to really mean anything of any significance.

While I don't think there is anything wrong in using the terms offhand simply because everyone knows what they are referring to, I think it would be better if everyone just called the debate what it is...

Pro legalized abortion and anti legalized abortion, or something along those lines.

After all, people don't often call the people in the marijuana legalization debate "Pro Plant" or "Pro Sobriety" since you can support the legalization of the drug while being pro sobriety in general and being against it doesn’t make you against the use of other plants. People tend to just call it what it is, which makes a hell of a lot more sense and cuts through a lot of the bullshit. (That's not to say that people aren't trying to invent new terms to re-frame that debate and aren't currently using existing vague terminology to make their position sound better. I just don't think those types of phrases and buzzwords have yet totally dominated the debate in the same way they have with abortion.)

[Oppressorion]

But why even be called pro-life when you advocate for exceptions in rape, etc? The means of conception does not change the fact that that is "life", correct?

Saying that you are pro-anything does not attach "absolutely without exceptions" to it.

[TaQud]

in my mine pro-life means you are against abortion.

[Wiztopia]

In American politics, the generalization is that conservatives tend to be 'pro-life' while liberals tend to be 'pro-choice', and I think we're all well aware of that. However, that only pertains to the issue of abortion. People label themselves as pro-life, but then go on to support contradicting things like wars or cutting welfare spending. At least that's how I see it. For me, I'm more of a big picture guy, and I like to stay consistent. For me, pro-life is supporting the life of the mother, even if she does choose to have an abortion, and then protect and preserve the life that is already here and is producing for the economy. So, where do you think the line should be drawn? How do we distinguish between pro- and anti-life? Should these things even exist?

If somebody claims to be pro-life but supports something like the death penalty then they are not pro-life.

Pro means for and life means life. Hence, pro-life means "for life". Therefore a person who supports the death penalty and calls themselves pro-life in an abortion debate is a hypocrite.

[United States of Natan]

True Pro-Life is anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment anti-war.

Welfare spending =/= pro-life. That is not concerning the acts of killing.

amen to that.

[Penguin Union Nation]

I know a guy who's Anti-Life:

[Cameroi]

what it SOULD mean, is to not endanger the life span of any healthy naturally living organism.

there's a quote from george martin's havaland tuff that applies. i shall get back when i have looked it up. (ah, found it)

"life is infinitely preferable to its alternative. however, in my experience, all things can be carried to extremes. this would seem to be the case ..." (with humanity on earth)

[But]

But why even be called pro-life when you advocate for exceptions in rape, etc? The means of conception does not change the fact that that is "life", correct?

Saying that you are pro-anything does not attach "absolutely without exceptions" to it.

I think you missed the point. So I can still be pro-life even if I think it should be legal for fetuses conceived by rape to be aborted? What is the real difference between a rape baby and a legitimate baby?

[Cameroi]

Saying that you are pro-anything does not attach "absolutely without exceptions" to it.

I think you missed the point. So I can still be pro-life even if I think it should be legal for fetuses conceived by rape to be aborted? What is the real difference between a rape baby and a legitimate baby?

a baby is a baby. a fetus is not. rather simple actually.

[America Resurgent]

So, months and months after 99% of abortions occur.

1% is still 10,000+.

And I'm not even certain (human) babies can be argued to have the same sentience as the animals who are mainly consumed/used by non-vegans.

Human babies are still capable of perceiving and at least beginning to learn from their environment, so...

[But]

I think you missed the point. So I can still be pro-life even if I think it should be legal for fetuses conceived by rape to be aborted? What is the real difference between a rape baby and a legitimate baby?

a baby is a baby. a fetus is not. rather simple actually.

I was not implying that, and I think you missed the point as well.

I'm saying this position:
Normally conceived fetus = Should be illegal to abort
Rape/incest conceived fetus = Should be legal to abort

is not consistent within itself and is therefore not pro-life.

[America Resurgent]

I was not implying that, and I think you missed the point as well.

I'm saying this position:
Normally conceived fetus = Should be illegal to abort
Rape/incest conceived fetus = Should be legal to abort

is not consistent within itself and is therefore not pro-life.

I actually used to think this, but it actually can be pretty consistent, and I figured this out when someone compared an abortion with, say, a car accident, wherein you damaged someone else's kidneys. The question was then posed to pro-lifers whether or not they'd find it an obligation on the part of the living one to donate one of their kidneys--life beating bodily integrity, after all.

But, there's a difference between this analogy and abortion, at least if abortion is allowed in the earlier terms. And that's due to the fact a pregnant woman did have a chance to, in metaphorical terms, completely fix the other guy's kidney without losing one of her own, by aborting early in.

...this only applies, however, outside cases of rape.

[Desperate Measures]

We don't know what this means yet? On NSG???