Are there views aside from anti-abortion that are consistent with the pro-life position?

[Epic Beard Man]

The central argument from the position of pro-life is that life begins at the moment of conception, and to discard a living thing, a thing that will develop into a sentient human being which is something that is sanctified by God, is contemptible and murder. If that is truly the basis of the pro-life argument what about all the other aspects of life after human beings are born into the world as citizens of their respective countries? I, myself, tend to criticize a lot of pro-lifers I've come into contact with because many whom are Christians often tout this position, but also support counter-terrorism results we have seen have produced killings of innocent men, women, and children. Some supported bringing justice to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which will result in the death of people both innocent and guilty. Or what about corruption in law enforcement which results in the killing of unarmed civilians? I have debated some so-called pro-lifers who think running from the cops and being shot and killed is justifiable. Or criminals who eventually die by judicial retribution via the death penalty?

It would seem in these dealings which Christians and of course non-Christians that hold the anti-abortion position, that the sanctity of life is as such up until a certain point of existence. I would suspect once an individual has sentience, agency and autonomy, they are not sanctified but are people who make choices in the world. If that is true then wouldn't such a position develop into a "Pandora's Box" considering the fact that we are changing the idea of when life is and when truly important?

Thoughts? Arguments?

Edit: I placed this in the political debates section due to the understanding that perhaps these are the discussions many of our lawmakers have regarding the legality of person hood.

 

[Lyndon]

their hypocrisy is indefensible.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Often these “pro-lifers” will conflate fetuses with babies, and thus equate having an abortion with taking a one-month-old or one year old infant and killing it, because “you choose to”.

I suppose that using a similar logic then having an abortion would be similar to killing a two or three-year-old who can’t really reason or understand what is happening beyond “I like that”, or “I don’t like that”.

At some arbitrary point in a human’s development, the pro-lifers must believe that a human being instantly becomes fully aware and responsible for their own decisions. However I have never heard the actual time, in years/months/or days spoken by any of them.
Since most anti-choicers also have an utter disregard for the quality of life, or the health of anything that has exited the birth canal of it’s own mother, they by force give the impression that it is better to kill an infant than a fetus.


One thing about the argument of life beginning at conception are such items as...
- roughly 30 to 50% of all fertilizations end with miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). Which to the theist would undeniably indicate that God Itself is the most active abortion doctor to have ever existed. Or shall we blame the mothers and have them put to death?
- On a related note. If the fetus is equal to a human, then they deserve a full investigation and trial of the murderers. So how about testing stillbirths for genetic abnormalities, and if one or both parents transmitted the abnormality and thus murdered the fetus, then that parent should be punished.
- If life (and presumably a soul) are brought into existence at conception, then what of identical twins? The fertilized cells from “one life” one soul” split into two human beings. There was no conception at the split....are they each born with half a soul? Is one born ‘soulless’?
- What about one fetus that is out-competed by its twin for the placental oxygen supply? Born a murderer?
- What of one twin absorbing its sibling into its own tissues during development? Also a born murderer?

 

[Stevicus]

The central argument from the position of pro-life is that life begins at the moment of conception, and to discard a living thing, a thing that will develop into a sentient human being which is something that is sanctified by God, is contemptible and murder. If that is truly the basis of the pro-life argument what about all the other aspects of life after human beings are born into the world as citizens of their respective countries? I, myself, tend to criticize a lot of pro-lifers I've come into contact with because many whom are Christians often tout this position, but also support counter-terrorism results we have seen have produced killings of innocent men, women, and children. Some supported bringing justice to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which will result in the death of people both innocent and guilty. Or what about corruption in law enforcement which results in the killing of unarmed civilians? I have debated some so-called pro-lifers who think running from the cops and being shot and killed is justifiable. Or criminals who eventually die by judicial retribution via the death penalty?

It would seem in these dealings which Christians and of course non-Christians that hold the anti-abortion position, that the sanctity of life is as such up until a certain point of existence. I would suspect once an individual has sentience, agency and autonomy, they are not sanctified but are people who make choices in the world. If that is true then wouldn't such a position develop into a "Pandora's Box" considering the fact that we are changing the idea of when life is and when truly important?

Thoughts? Arguments?

Edit: I placed this in the political debates section due to the understanding that perhaps these are the discussions many of our lawmakers have regarding the legality of person hood.

There are some Christians I've talked to whose views are at least consistent in this regard. They're anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty; they take the term "pro-life" literally. But these seem to be few and far between.

On the other hand, I encounter many more who fall into the category you describe. They're vehemently against abortion, but also seem pretty hawkish regarding foreign policy, support the death penalty, and other things that would seem inconsistent with a pro-life point of view. But then again, I don't see this as anything new about religion.

This cuts to the core reason why so many people tend to oppose religion: There are far too many religionists (even at the highest levels) who don't practice what they preach. It's as simple as that.

I realize that there will always be hypocrites and villains in any belief system, but when one encounters it so often to the point where such hypocrisy has become standardized within the dogma, then it points to a fundamental flaw within that belief system itself.

Of course, there are those who may argue from the standpoint that governments and societies sometimes have to venture into a certain "gray area" between good and evil - mainly out of practical necessity, even if it's not strictly moral or follows God's commandments to the letter. Some may argue that God allows a bit of "wiggle room" so that human society can still function on a practical level.

 

[Lyndon]

i'm anti abortion, anti death penalty, anti war, but I think life should be put in perspective, taking the life of a foetus is not as big a crime as abusing and torturing a child, or killing innocent civilians. A true pro life policy has to go much much further than just focusing on foetus's, It should be applied to all life.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The central argument from the position of pro-life is that life begins at the moment of conception, and to discard a living thing, a thing that will develop into a sentient human being which is something that is sanctified by God, is contemptible and murder. If that is truly the basis of the pro-life argument what about all the other aspects of life after human beings are born into the world as citizens of their respective countries? I, myself, tend to criticize a lot of pro-lifers I've come into contact with because many whom are Christians often tout this position, but also support counter-terrorism results we have seen have produced killings of innocent men, women, and children. Some supported bringing justice to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which will result in the death of people both innocent and guilty. Or what about corruption in law enforcement which results in the killing of unarmed civilians? I have debated some so-called pro-lifers who think running from the cops and being shot and killed is justifiable. Or criminals who eventually die by judicial retribution via the death penalty?

It would seem in these dealings which Christians and of course non-Christians that hold the anti-abortion position, that the sanctity of life is as such up until a certain point of existence. I would suspect once an individual has sentience, agency and autonomy, they are not sanctified but are people who make choices in the world. If that is true then wouldn't such a position develop into a "Pandora's Box" considering the fact that we are changing the idea of when life is and when truly important?

Thoughts? Arguments?

Edit: I placed this in the political debates section due to the understanding that perhaps these are the discussions many of our lawmakers have regarding the legality of person hood.

That's a little reductionistic. Pro life includes valuing end of life and raises the value of life for disabled as well. Ted Kennedy Jr said he was surprised how helpful pro life people were in helping disabled people. I would not be surprised as that is just consistent.

Late term abortions are in it's own category since the baby can experience excruciating pain.

In the end the pro abortion view is more akin to 'I see something moving in the bushes' so I don't really know it's a person, so it's ok to shoot it. Seems flawed . And oh by the way, most abortions in the world are aborting little girls.

The Bible presents children as a gift from God. Planned parenthood presents children as an inconvenient accident of a sexual relationship and goes the route of the Baal worship which offered children for prosperity. There is a significant value difference.

 

[Nakosis]

Thoughts? Arguments?

It's an emotional issue, based on individual feelings and where one finds their compassion to lie.

Not rational, not logical, not scientific. People feel what they feel. Even if they can't exactly explain source or justification for that feeling. Some feel compassion for the women who find themselves in a difficult situation. Some feel compassion for the unborn.

This is morality, morals. Based on feelings not logic. A human condition, we feel.

 

[Valjean]

In the end the pro abortion view is more akin to 'I see something moving in the bushes' so I don't really know it's a person, so it's ok to shoot it. Seems flawed . And oh by the way, most abortions in the world are aborting little girls.

No, the pro-abortionists position is more like "what are we dealing with, neurologically? Is this a conscious being? Does it value its life? Is it even aware of its life? Does it care if it continues to live or not?
"Abortionists" think about the question.

The Bible presents children as a gift from God. Planned parenthood presents children as an inconvenient accident of a sexual relationship and goes the route of the Baal worship which offered children for prosperity. There is a significant value difference.

I think the Bible is ambiguous on this point. Most interpretations don't seem to consider foetuses people; some don't confer personhood till some time after birth.
I think you'd find most supporters of Planned Parenthood value the sanctity of life more than the average evangelical. More of the former support pre-school education, parental leave, medicaid, SNAP and other social programs. More are anti-war and anti death penalty.
Many evangelicals, on the other hand, support a sink-or-swim social agenda and a dog-eat-dog, nationalist, competitive society, rather than the supportive, family-value socialism Jesus preached.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Pro life includes valuing end of life and raises the value of life for disabled as well.

That is not the anti-abortionist argument.

In the end the pro abortion view is more akin to 'I see something moving in the bushes' so I don't really know it's a person, so it's ok to shoot it.

False.

Planned parenthood presents children as an inconvenient accident of a sexual relationship and goes the route of the Baal worship which offered children for prosperity. There is a significant value difference.

So what does Baal have to do with rape or are we going to discuss "The Rite" the Anthony Hopkins movie in this regard?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It's an emotional issue, based on individual feelings and where one finds their compassion to lie.

I agree, but what do you mean specifically?

Did you not read what the original opinion stated? Many are pro-life yet aren't pro-life when it comes to adult human beings.

 

[Hildeburh]

And by pro life, I guess you mean human life? What, you don't think there is enough of us on this fragile planet? There is way too much hand wringing over this issue. Much of it motivated by religious thinking.

Take a moment to consider the environmental impact humans have caused by overpopulation, exploitation and over consumption. If we are all to have a future there are greater issues to tackle.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree, but what do you mean specifically?

Did you not read what the original opinion stated? Many are pro-life yet aren't pro-life when it comes to adult human beings.

Yes, I did. I'm am agreeing with you, are at least I think I am that many pro-life folks are not rational about their position. IMO, moral issues are not rational ones.