What Does it Mean to be Pro-Life?

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64568-2005Mar24.html

A Thin View of 'Life'

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A19

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- What does it mean to be pro-life?

The label is thrown around in American politics so blithely that you'd imagine it refers to some workaday issue such as a tax bill or a trade agreement. Might the one good thing to come out of the rancid politics surrounding the Terri Schiavo case be a serious discussion of the meaning of that term?

To begin with, why did Congress feel an obligation to turn Schiavo's tragedy into a federal case? President Bush's answer was compelling: "In a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch ought to err on the side of life."

You don't have to be a religious conservative to agree with that or to worry about prematurely allowing someone to die. But what, exactly, does "a case such as this" mean? Does it refer to one that received widespread publicity and became a major national cause for the right-to-life movement? Does it refer to one in which the parents and the spouse disagree?

There are countless decisions made every week when a family member removes someone they love from life support. Just over a week ago, a 5 1/2-month-old baby named Sun Hudson died after doctors at Texas Children's Hospital removed the breathing tube that had kept him alive. It was removed over his mother's opposition under the provisions of the 1999 Texas Advance Directives Act signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Democrats such as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida have been arguing that Bush's decision to sign the bill aimed at protecting Schiavo's life is inconsistent with his earlier decision to sign a law designed to rationalize the way end-of-life decisions are made.

But leave that aside and just ask why Schiavo's case was a national cause and Sun Hudson's wasn't. I am sure there are medical and moral distinctions to be made, but honestly: How many bills would Congress have to pass to ensure that in every close medical call around the country, we "err on the side of life"? How many courts would have to be involved? That's why it's not surprising the Supreme Court decided yesterday to stay out of this controversy.

Whether or not signing that Texas bill puts the 1999 Bush at odds with the 2005 Bush, the act of approving it was an acknowledgment that end-of-life issues in an age of advanced medical technology must be confronted, however wrenching they are. Facing up to those questions and drawing distinctions is especially important for those -- and I'm one of them -- who oppose doctor-assisted suicide.

How has Terri Schiavo's care been financed? The available information suggests that some of the money came from one of those much-derided medical malpractice lawsuits and that the drugs she needs have been paid for by Medicaid.

The irony has not been lost on Democrats. Just a few days after most Republicans in both houses of Congress had supported cuts in federal funding of Medicaid, here they were erring "on the side of life" in a single case. The same issue has come up here in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong supporter of keeping Schiavo alive, has been proposing cuts in Medicaid spending.

Republicans cry foul when any link is made between the Schiavo question and the Medicaid question. "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected Democrats are to reality," harrumphed Dan Allen, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Forgive me, Mr. Allen, I know you're just doing your job, but what's disconnected from reality is refusing to accept the idea that health care is about life issues and money issues.

People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance often die earlier than they have to -- with absolutely no national publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it?

What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.

I thought the op-ed raised some good points... I've never really understood how someone could claim to be pro-life when it comes to abotion but totally ignore other life issues like gun violence, health care, or the death penalty.

I know we're supposed to avoid the cut-n-paste editorials, but I was really hoping some of the pro-life members of this forum could help me come to an understanding :)
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
i like saving unborn children and killing murderers. liberals are the opposite.



<<runs away>>
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
I am pro-life, in that any action by me which takes or threatens the life of another should be able to be met with equal detriment to my own. I oppose abortion, I fully oppose gun control, and I do not yet have an opinion on the Terry Schiavo case. I think that Bush and the US Congress overstepped their bounds in their pitiful attempt to pander to the typical "pro-life" crowd.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
I thought the op-ed raised some good points... I've never really understood how someone could claim to be pro-life when it comes to abotion but totally ignore other life issues like gun violence, health care, or the death penalty.

I know we're supposed to avoid the cut-n-paste editorials, but I was really hoping some of the pro-life members of this forum could help me come to an understanding :)
This comes back to the same point I've made several times in the last week. I'm really beginning to wonder if liberals think this way. Do you honestly think conservatives support gun violence and lack of health care? I don't think you can tell me in good faith that you really believe that.

With guns, the issue is not, in and of itself, a life-related issue. Using guns against other people who are not breaking the law in an effort to hurt you or your family is illegal, as it should be. If someone is breaking the law at your expense, owning a gun allows you to defend yourself. A firearm makes you at least the equal of your attacker, whereas a knife does not. Of course, guns can be used illegally. The law already prohibits illicit use of firearms, yet they still happen. Do you think a gun ban will somehow make this go away? In short, the answer is that gun violence is illegal and no one is acting to change that.

Saying that conservatives are against healthcare is completely laughable. I am very much for every person having ready access to any healthcare that they may need. However, I am also very much aware of the gross incompetence that exists in our country's existing healthcare provision systems. I have seen this from both sides: that of the doctor and that of the patient. Doctors simply cannot deal with the patients that use government healthcare provisions: the fees regulated are simply less than the procedures cost. In addition, the patients have the lowest attendance rate of any demographic. If it's completely free to you, what motivation do you have to call the doc if you're not going to show up for your appointment? That, and the government withholds payment of even its meager fees for years, often in direct violation of law. There are many more reasons, but these are the most obvious and the ones that are causing many doctors to simply reject any patients with government-provided healthcare. From the patient's perspective, they get the short end of the stick because now any doctor worth his salt rejects the government-covered patients as a unit. They are stuck with the doctors who cannot necessarily get any other patient base, indicating that they are probably not the best care providers around. What is the solution? I honestly don't know. I do know that throwing a huge softball to the government is not the best way.

Though I personally strongly disagree with capital punishment, it is the only anti-life event that can be logically justifiable. There are certain criteria that must be met for any punishment to be justifiable: it must enact retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Obviously capital punishment fails on retribution and rehabilitation, though there is still some question regarding deterrence. The literature that I have read suggests that it is not an effective detterent (indeed, I can't find a single piece of literature that supports it being an effective deterrent), though many still hold that it is effective in this regard. Barring that, in cases where society cannot contain a very dangerous individual, it may be ethically mandated that that criminal be put to death. Obviously, in the US (and 99% of the world today), this is not the case.
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

:thumbsup:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
:thumbsup:
Yes, both of you just live in your world of ignorance.
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup::beer:
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Being For killing innocent babies and against killing murderers and child rapists is hipocracy.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out. Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry. It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Not hypocracy at all.

Indiscriminate bombing from 30,000 feet and bombing specific targets while attempting to mitigate innocent civilian casualties are two seperate things...and there are some who believe that war is sometimes necessary to ultimately save innocent human lives...in the case of Iraq, you could make the argument that the war was unnecessary...harder to make that same case for say WW2.

Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? When and if that does occur, it illustrates the fallacy of our judicial system, not the punishment associated with the crime.

Erring on the side of life is not a black and white stance...as always, it often depends on the circumstances.

I can't think of anyone who is Pro-Choice that supports the indiscriminate killing of any undesired child...they draw the boundaries around the pregnancy, because those are the circumstances that dictate and perhaps justify the abortion.

Similarly, the circumstances surrounding a nation's decision to go to war sometimes justifies not erring on the side of life.

The same can be said for capital punishment.

It is a sliding scale, based largely on the moral standards that a particular society accepts...because American political opinion is so diversified and polarized, it really is no surprise that where one group claims hypocracy, the other only sees reason.
 

Sunbird

Golden Member
Jul 20, 2001
1,024
2
81
I'm pro-life, meaning I don't support abortions (except if it imminently endangers the moms life, or if the baby is the result of rape, in which case rape charges should also have been laid) and I don't support the death sentence.

If one innocent person gets executed because they were wrongly convicted, then that is one to many. You can't bring the guy back from the dead, and say "Sorry, we made a mistake", can you?

While in the case of abortion, you don't know what the potensial for the baby could have been in the future. The baby could have turned into a scientist that cures the coming plague or something. Sex = good chance of baby, so if you can't handle baby, don't have sex, or have oral sex or something.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
I am pro-aborition, I personally don't see as a fetus as a human life until it can live outside the womb. It's just another method of birth control.

I am also for the death penatly. Life Sentances are stupid, so are 70+ year sentances, you'll dead before you'll get out. Once your found gulity of murder, you should be shot on the spot. Of course, since our courts aren't perfect... I won't fully support the death pentalty.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
I am pro-aborition, I personally don't see as a fetus as a human life until it can live outside the womb. It's just another method of birth control.

I am also for the death penatly. Life Sentances are stupid, so are 70+ year sentances, you'll dead before you'll get out. Once your found gulity of murder, you should be shot on the spot. Of course, since our courts aren't perfect... I won't fully support the death pentalty.
How do you define the point of viability? Why is this a justifiable point up to which abortion should be allowed?

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
--Mother Teresa
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Well I'm not pro-abortion by any means, but I think I can handle these questions:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How do you define the point of viability?
Records of premature births give us a pretty solid idea of where that line is.

Originally posted by: CycloWizardWhy is this a justifiable point up to which abortion should be allowed?
Becuase addoption isn't an option prior to that point.

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Well I'm not pro-abortion by any means, but I think I can handle these questions:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How do you define the point of viability?
Records of premature births give us a pretty solid idea of where that line is.

Originally posted by: CycloWizardWhy is this a justifiable point up to which abortion should be allowed?
Becuase addoption isn't an option prior to that point.

:) Speaking of preemie births (born 13.5 weeks early myself), I regard the point of viability as any time in the second trimester. First trimester I tend to be less certain about.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Well I'm not pro-abortion by any means, but I think I can handle these questions:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How do you define the point of viability?
Records of premature births give us a pretty solid idea of where that line is.

Originally posted by: CycloWizardWhy is this a justifiable point up to which abortion should be allowed?
Becuase addoption isn't an option prior to that point.

:) Speaking of preemie births (born 13.5 weeks early myself), I regard the point of viability as any time in the second trimester. First trimester I tend to be less certain about.

Aren't those illegal?

 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
:thumbsup:
Yes, both of you just live in your world of ignorance.

The evidence indicates otherwise.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out.
Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry.
It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Being For killing innocent babies and against killing murderers and child rapists is hipocracy.

In this country the LAW says women have a right to choose their own reproductive paths.
I support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes which have an overwhelming tide of evidence and are tried properly.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Err on the side of life unless you're bombing from 30,000 feet. In that case let the bombs sort it out. Been wrongly accused and sentenced to die? Not erring on the side of life there either, sorry. It's absolute hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Not hypocracy at all.

Indiscriminate bombing from 30,000 feet and bombing specific targets while attempting to mitigate innocent civilian casualties are two seperate things...and there are some who believe that war is sometimes necessary to ultimately save innocent human lives...in the case of Iraq, you could make the argument that the war was unnecessary...harder to make that same case for say WW2.
Mitigating civilian casualties? That's what we're doing in Iraq? Talk about living in a fantasy world.... The rest of your post was incoherent.
And guys, it's HYPOCRISY.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Here's a complex thought... I don't agree with abortions, and I can't see my ever justifying one, but I think they should remain legal.

As for the death penalty, I think it should remain legal *if* they can 100% prove that someone is guilty. The current system has executed innocent people. 1 innocent executed is too much.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Records of premature births give us a pretty solid idea of where that line is.
The line is constantly moving, however. It changes with the latest technology. So, are you saying that it's only a human life when our technology is sufficiently advanced to sustain it outside the womb? That's not a logically tenable position.
Becuase addoption isn't an option prior to that point.
Why does lack of adoption have anything to do with abortion? Should we allow mothers to kill their newborn children simply because no one will adopt them?
Originally posted by: Tabb
When it can live outside the womb... Like I said...
But you can't define this time, nor can you tell me why this should be the rule. Therefore, this statement is essentially meaningless.
Originally posted by: Tabb
Aren't those illegal?
Abortions at any stage of development are legal.
Originally posted by: BDawg
Here's a complex thought... I don't agree with abortions, and I can't see my ever justifying one, but I think they should remain legal.
Here's a complex thought... I don't agree with murder, and I can't see myself ever murdering anyone, but I think they should be legal. WTF?
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Maybe he thinks it's not his place to decide what a woman does with her reproductive life. I find it interesting that it's always primarily white men trying to shove their ideas down the throat of society.

Meanwhile:

Also Friday, the FBI said a man was arrested in Fairview, N.C., allegedly for offering a $250,000 bounty for Michael Schiavo's death and $50,000 for that of a judge in the case. The FBI did not identify the judge.

Richard Alan Meywes allegedly sent the threatening e-mail Tuesday to two Tampa-area news organizations and the host of a national conservative talk show, the FBI said.

Meywes was taken into custody at his home and charged with murder for hire and with the transmission of interstate threatening communications, the FBI said. If convicted, Meywes could face up to 15 years in prison and fines up to $500,000.

Text
Now we're seeing the true colors of the "right to lifers". KILL the Judge! KILL the husband. Yeah, there's the solution! Ridiculous.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Maybe he thinks it's not his place to decide what a woman does with her reproductive life. I find it interesting that it's always primarily white men trying to shove their ideas down the throat of society.
I also find it interesting that you think terminating life is part of a woman's reproductive health.
Now we're seeing the true colors of the "right to lifers". KILL the Judge! KILL the husband. Yeah, there's the solution! Ridiculous.
Yes, let's judge everyone claiming to share one particular view by the actions of its most extreme member! By your logic, you support nuking third world countries, genocide, eugenics, cannibalism, among other things. Looks like you'd better get started.