Can This Be Pro-Life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your "thinking" is so simplistic it's shameful.

The world/ country/ state is not one big commune. We don't just all get to go around having sex, making babies and then expecting others to "help us out." There is nothing inconsistent about about being pro-life, as in anti-abortion, pro-abstinence (although a bit naive, I admit), and opposed to a massive welfare state at the same time. I, personally, cannot be RESPONSIBLE for all these newly created creatures, even though I strongly support policies that ensure their birth and give them a chance at life in the first place.

OP here. So basically, you're repeating what I said in my post. Give them life by denying contraception and abortions to the parents; after that the kids are on their own.

I don't support a "massive welfare state" but it seems the Conservative party is chipping away at the legality of contraception & abortion. I would like people to stick to the number of kids that they can afford to raise, to spend time with, and to educate.

What if the poor and middle class already have 2 kids and don't want any more because they can't afford it. Do you help them out? Nope. Uh-huh. Not your problem, right? It seems you have blocked the road at both ends for people trying to be responsible.

Give them a chance at life and they're on their own. Fabulous ideas. Your idea as resulted in millions of street kids around the world who have no families; the kids beg and steal to survive. What kind of life is that?

It seems YOU have over simplified my comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: But then, you believe the government should intervene to save the life of an unborn child. The irony of this is that the harder it is for people to get abortions, the more government assistance will be needed for the larger number of children that will be born into a world where mom and dad are incapable and unable to provide for them.

Actually you mis-state my position. I don't believe government should be in the business of helping to kill an unborn child. Very different. Especially my government with my tax dollars. To MY point of view, that makes me complicit in the government funded abortion.

For those of you who hold a different point of view, why don't you start an organization to assist poor woman to have abortions and fund it voluntarily, rather than demanding money from me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For those of you who hold a different point of view, why don't you start an organization to assist poor woman to have abortions and fund it voluntarily, rather than demanding money from me?

Isn't that where Planned Parenthood comes in?

[Anonymous]

14:32, there is nothing wrong with the idea of responsible sex after marriage if one is really trying to prevent pregnancies. You know, things like contraception or perhaps, yes, even the dreaded "abstinence" for a few days during the fertile period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But then, you believe the government should intervene to save the life of an unborn child. The irony of this is that the harder it is for people to get abortions, the more government assistance will be needed for the larger number of children that will be born into a world where mom and dad are incapable and unable to provide for them.

Actually you mis-state my position. I don't believe government should be in the business of helping to kill an unborn child. Very different. Especially my government with my tax dollars. To MY point of view, that makes me complicit in the government funded abortion.

For those of you who hold a different point of view, why don't you start an organization to assist poor woman to have abortions and fund it voluntarily, rather than demanding money from me?

Wait - do we get to pay taxes a la carte? So only the things I believe in get funded with my tax dollars. I could argue I didn't vote for Bush and I am pissed my tax dollars go to fund his salary and all the policies he supports that I don't believe in. I could say my tax money goes to help run prisons and I don't believe in the death penalty. There are some people that think the only thing the federal government should handle is defense and are upset their taxes are paying for anything else.

This such a hot button issue because each side feels passionate about their side and they see the issue very differently. There are probably only two things I would be willing to be involved in an honest to goodness protest for - and that is if I felt pro-choice were at risk or my right to vote was at risk because for me as a minority woman - both those things were only realities in the last century and they both have to do with having control over your life. If I can't control when I have children and how many children I have and I can't have a voice in how the state, local, and federal government is run thru voting - it would be like going back to the turn of the century. I know pro-life thinks about it as life with no distinctions but I think about the economic and emotional issue. Someone is saying you have to raise a child that you may not be prepared to raise financially or emotionally. Now you may say abstinence - but I think you get back to how it has always been where the woman bears more of the burden in the abstinence only than the man AND hardcore religious views could mean limited birth control access if you believe non-married couples should not be having sex and giving access to birth control would encourage it. Also even with married couples there could be belief that sex should only be for procreation so *technically* the only approved birth control method could be the rhythm method.

So my point is now we have moved from me controlling when I have children and how many to someone else's religous views dictating my life and there would be nothing I could do about it. I know people focus on the abortion part of it. But it is birth control that is at risk too with people that can morally object to filling the prescription or insurance companies deciding not to cover birth control etc. When you talk about life - I still think it still goes back to the woman making the decision. I had to fill out the medical directives as part of the will process and it was scary. I had to decide what measures I wanted to keep me alive , if I wanted to give guidance on what to do if I were pregnant and on life support etc. So in a way this gets back to it not being cut and dry. I would hate for the state or some people protesting outside that have nothing to do with the situation making a decision if I should be kept on life support with no chance of survival. To me that is a personal decision that should be made with my family and the doctors - not someone outside the situation. I have known people that had to deal with this type of situation - in one case it was especially tragic because it was my friend's cousin that was in her early twenties and newly married - it was a difficult situation and the family is very religious. The cousin went in for one thing and ended up with water in her lungs and on life support. The point I am trying to make is with the argument about life - you could make the same argument with someone on life support and saying - nope everyone on life support has to stay on life support even if there is no hope of survival. Sorry family, you have to deal with it and oh by the way here is the hospital bills. Bottom line I think the sides just see the world differently. Personally as I've gotten older and have children of my own I would not choose an abortion - however pro-choice also include birth control so not only would I feel strongly about not interfering in someone else choice about abortion (realizing my position has changed over time for myself) BUT I am in the uncomfortable position of worrying about if someone's else decision on birth control can impact me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:32, there is nothing wrong with the idea of responsible sex after marriage if one is really trying to prevent pregnancies. You know, things like contraception or perhaps, yes, even the dreaded "abstinence" for a few days during the fertile period.

So then we should rely on the "rhythm" method because we know the exact days that women are fertile?

[Anonymous]

"I'm the one that posted that I just don't get it.

I'm pro-life in that I will always choose life.
I'm anti-death penalty because I will always choose life
I'm pro gay rights and even gay marriage, because I think permanent bonding between loving people is an affirmation of life.
I have a gun, because I want to keep my life and the lives of my family safe.

I don't think that I am a complex person, I just feel like a person who wants everyone to be responsible to appreciate the life that is given to us all.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?"

The difference between consevatives and liberals really is not about whether or not there should be government intervention but when there should be government intervention.

Its interesting that buzz word slogans promote a different understanding which creates all the disconnects. You always hear conservatives say they want small government but if authority is at issue they quickly expand the powers and expenditures of government. You've seen the biggest explosions in the size of the excutive branches under Republican leadership. The "small government" is only in reference to using the government to promote social issues in terams of unemployment, wages, healthcare and staying minimal on regulation of business.

Conservativism promotes religion and authority as core concepts while liberalism promotes extending individual freedoms. Pro life positions primarily stem from religious beliefs about when life begins and man intervening in God's Will. You could take a pro life position for secular reasons but less likely. Support for capital punishment comes from the core value of authority.

The gun control one is always a little odd to me though. You would think since police strongly support gun control (after all they tend to be the ones most likely to run into someone with a gun..) conservatives would be for it. Since liberals support extending personal freedoms you would think they would be against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Pro life positions primarily stem from religious beliefs about when life begins and man intervening in God's Will.

So does "God's Will" apply to artificially sustaining the life of a brain dead person or one who is in vegetative state? If it's "God's Will" whether that person lives or dies, shouldn't you disconnect the machine that breathes for the person? Also, if the person cannot swallow due to age or injuries, should we continue to feed the vegetative person through tubes when he/she is not likely to recover?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:32, there is nothing wrong with the idea of responsible sex after marriage if one is really trying to prevent pregnancies. You know, things like contraception or perhaps, yes, even the dreaded "abstinence" for a few days during the fertile period.

So then we should rely on the "rhythm" method because we know the exact days that women are fertile?

Here's a cute joke from some Catholic friends who have five kids:


What do you call people who used the rhythm method?

Parents!

[Anonymous]

"So does "God's Will" apply to artificially sustaining the life of a brain dead person or one who is in vegetative state? If it's "God's Will" whether that person lives or dies, shouldn't you disconnect the machine that breathes for the person? Also, if the person cannot swallow due to age or injuries, should we continue to feed the vegetative person through tubes when he/she is not likely to recover? "

Actually it usually does. This is not my position but the religious conservative position does tend to view stopping an action such as removing a feeding tube or vent as interference. Remember the horrible in case in Florida a few years back when republicans were fighting to keep the poor women in the same state.

[Anonymous]

Is it against "God will" if you try artificial insemination because you cannot get pregnant on your own?

[Anonymous]

Because of the Pope and the College of Cardinals, "Catholic" has a fairly precise definition. The secular religions known as "liberalism" and "conservatism" have no governing bodies, so the definitions vary from person to person and time to time.

As a first step in understanding someone's viewpoint, it may help if s/he identifies her/himself as one or the other. But once you get to any level of detail in a discussion, I think the terms confuse more than they help!

What we need is a term for those who are dogmatic enough to judge people by such inexact labels ... "Fools" might work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"So does "God's Will" apply to artificially sustaining the life of a brain dead person or one who is in vegetative state? If it's "God's Will" whether that person lives or dies, shouldn't you disconnect the machine that breathes for the person? Also, if the person cannot swallow due to age or injuries, should we continue to feed the vegetative person through tubes when he/she is not likely to recover? "

Actually it usually does. This is not my position but the religious conservative position does tend to view stopping an action such as removing a feeding tube or vent as interference. Remember the horrible in case in Florida a few years back when republicans were fighting to keep the poor women in the same state.

It seem contradictory. In the case of sustaining a person's life when in nature he would die then aren't the religious right working against God's Will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seem contradictory. In the case of sustaining a person's life when in nature he would die then aren't the religious right working against God's Will?

But God gave us the ability to invent life-saving machinery, so it must be God's Will that we use it.

And God gave me the skepticism to believe that "God" is a simplistic explanation for all we do not know, so my agnosticism is clearly God's Will (or should that particular manifestation be called "God's Won't"?)

Please forgive my snarky way of saying that I think it's presumptuous of people to claim to know God's Will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seem contradictory. In the case of sustaining a person's life when in nature he would die then aren't the religious right working against God's Will?

But God gave us the ability to invent life-saving machinery, so it must be God's Will that we use it.

And God gave me the skepticism to believe that "God" is a simplistic explanation for all we do not know, so my agnosticism is clearly God's Will (or should that particular manifestation be called "God's Won't"?)

Please forgive my snarky way of saying that I think it's presumptuous of people to claim to know God's Will.

How do you know it's God's Will that we invented life saving machines? It sounds like your way of rationalizing what God's will is. How do you know it wasn't Satan's Will to have this machinery to go against God's will?

I think of nature as being a part of God. In nature, animals don't survive if they are born weak or seriously injured.