Pro-Life???

Archivist said:

Among those who claim to be pro-life on the issue of abortion are some who oppose abortion in any case, even when an abortion would be necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. That means that while they my be pro-fetal life, they are most certainly not pro-pregnant woman life.

Is it proper for such people to use the pro-life label, since they advocate a position that would likely result in the death of the pregnant woman?

Click to expand...

No, I don't find it proper. That's why I like the term "anti-choice" better. It's much more fitting. They want to get rid of the abortion option, or the choice.

No, I don't find it proper. That's why I like the term "anti-choice" better. It's much more fitting. They want to get rid of the abortion option, or the choice.

Click to expand...

Same here. I also perfer the term "Anti-Roe".

Phinehas2 said:

I prefer the term pro-choice murder. Abortion is murder when its isn’t to save the mothers life.

Click to expand...

Thanks for adding something completely off topic to the conversation. Skirting the issue because you know the OP is right?

Lux et Lex,
The answer to the thread title is no they cant really be pro-life if the abortion is necessary to save the mother it implies unless the baby is aborted both will die. If that position is that both should die rather than one be saved it cant be pro-life.

But if you wish to discuss the other position you need to represent it properly. The other postion wouldnt be defending pro-fetal life but pro-baby life.
So the thread almost discussing its own straw man amongst posters misrepresenting the other position.

I don't know why "to save the mother" is always being brought up. How often does that even happen? That has to be pretty rare. Especially up against how many of them are just people who don't want to have a kid.

But to answer that question, I don't think there is really a question there. You save the life of the mother, obviously. The child never really knew life as we know it, the mother actually fears death and doesn't deserve to croak just because there is some kind of complication thing. Doing this is not some kind of shirking of responsibility, its saving someone's life. Its a shame that the baby has to be sacrificed for that but in most of these cases it was just going to die anyway. So why not make the best you can out of a bad situation?

I couldn't sacrifice one live for my own. period. As a woman i know when I have sex I could get pregnant and there is a small minute chance this situation arises. I still made the choice to engage in intercourse therefore I am responsible for my fate and choices.

Photonfanatic said:

I don't know why "to save the mother" is always being brought up. How often does that even happen? That has to be pretty rare. Especially up against how many of them are just people who don't want to have a kid.

But to answer that question, I don't think there is really a question there. You save the life of the mother, obviously. The child never really knew life as we know it, the mother actually fears death and doesn't deserve to croak just because there is some kind of complication thing. Doing this is not some kind of shirking of responsibility, its saving someone's life. Its a shame that the baby has to be sacrificed for that but in most of these cases it was just going to die anyway. So why not make the best you can out of a bad situation?

Click to expand...

it happens more than you think and there are times when trying to save a baby's life is written off as an abortion when it isn't. a girl i went to school with was having complications during her pregnancy. her body began attacking the pregnancy and was beginning to shut down. it was determined that the baby would have a higher chance of surviving outside of the womb, since the womb became to hostile. they delivered the baby with the intent on saving it. unfortunately, the baby didn't survive, and since it was done 1-week before "age of viability" it was listed as a late term abortion.

i've always wanted to be a mom above anything else and i think the hardest decision i would have to make would be to terminate a pregnancy for medical purposes. i would have to do it though, i have two other children that i wouldn't want to risk leaving motherless...

InHisSpirit said:

I couldn't sacrifice one live for my own. period. As a woman i know when I have sex I could get pregnant and there is a small minute chance this situation arises. I still made the choice to engage in intercourse therefore I am responsible for my fate and choices.

Click to expand...

people don't go into pregnancy expecting something bad to happen. if i get pregnant tomorrow and it ends up being an ectopic pregnancy, i would definitely terminate the pregnancy. to me, it would be more selfish to risk my life for a pregnancy i knew wasn't going to produce a child knowing i have two other children i have to take care of...

sorry ignore me, didn't realize i was in a "christians only" section. i apologize.

InHisSpirit said:

I couldn't sacrifice one live for my own. period. As a woman i know when I have sex I could get pregnant and there is a small minute chance this situation arises. I still made the choice to engage in intercourse therefore I am responsible for my fate and choices.

Click to expand...

Amen. I'm a man, so maybe my vote doesn't count, but I think this is the right attitude. If you engage in intercourse, you are saying you are mature enough to be a parent. If so, then you're going to be making a lot of sacrifices for your child. Get ready for it.

Though I'll never be pregnant, there is a parallel consideration for men. Suppose an attacker threatens the life of your child. Would you kill the attacker to save the child? My answer is no. I will never intentionally take a life. I will fight for my children as long as there is breath in my body and theirs (think of King David). If the result of that fight is death (mine, the attacker, or the child's), then so be it, but I won't set out with that intention.

I think the same should hold for a pregnancy. Never give up as long as there is life. To decide to take the life of one or the other is to accept defeat. The doctor should do everything possible for the life of both and let the result be what the result is.

Archivist said:

As long as that choice to abort or to give birth is left up to the pregnant woman I don't disagree with you. However, no one should tell a pregnant woman whose life is at risk that she made her choice when she decided to engage in intercourse and cannot take steps to protect her own life, even if those steps would require an abortion.

Click to expand...

A nicely liberal, western, American attitude. Show me in the scriptures where it says, "No one can tell you what to do." If a woman can choose her life over that of her child, can I, as a man, do the same?

Yes, I do disagree, especially with this de-humanizing statement.

Archivist said:

First of all I am not talking about a woman killing her child. I'm talking about a fetus.

Click to expand...

If one insists on calling one's opponents anti choice one shouldn't object to their opponents calling them pro abortion. Objections to the term pro life stem from the fact that many that say they are pro life are only pro life about one issue. The same can be said of many who say they are pro choice. I always preferred the more specific terms pro abortion and anti abortion.