Pro-Fetal Life

[Archivist]

I brought it up even if you don't think anyone else did.

But it isn't what we are discussing, nor is abortion murder.

 

[Archivist]

It would seem that the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are both more than likely being phased out anyway. Here are some news organizations choice of terminology:

Washington Post
Abortion rights advocate
Anti-abortion

New York Times
Abortion rights advocate
Anti-abortion (corrected 3/19/2010 3:34 p.m.)

Philadelphia Inquirer
Abortion rights advocates
Anti-abortion

CNN
Abortion rights supporters
Anti-abortion activists
Pro-abortion rights
Anti-abortion rights

NBC
Pro-abortion rights
Anti-abortion
Anti-abortion advocates

CBS
Pro-abortion rights
Anti-abortion rights

You will notice that I didn't propose using a term beginning with anti. Using such a term automatically puts one in a weaker position, as the anti-Federalists found out.

 

[Archivist]

I believe you know what the RCC means by "neutral." It means that the medical procedure used on the woman should not be directed at killing the unborn human being.

If you read my post you know that I am aware of that.

 

[SPF]

Very sad that you want to use a term that is inaccurate solely because it has been used a certain way for 50 years.

Frankly, I for the most part don't care what term I use. What I do know is that for the past 50 years, Pro-Life has meant "Against Abortion". If there is a better, more popular term that culture begins to use that accurately describes my position, then I'll gladly use that term.

However, your suggested term "Pro-Fetal Life" is not a label that I could personally use because the definition you've provided is not something I believe. And for what it's worth, I don't think a single person on this forum has come forward and said they would utilize your new label given the definition that you've provided.

If you think you can come up with a better and more accurate term than "Pro-Life" that people who are "against abortion" can agree with, I'll gladly use your new label.

 

[Aldebaran]

And folks, let’s get this thread back on topic. The question is the use of pro-life by people who are actually pro-fetal life. Why shouldn’t pro-life go back to the original meaning? Why don’t those opposed to abortion latch on to a more accurate title?

I've never met a single person who was killed during their fetal stages. Have you?

 

[Archivist]

Frankly, I for the most part don't care what term I use.

If you don't care, why have you made such a big deal about it in this thread.

What I do know is that for the past 50 years, Pro-Life has meant "Against Abortion". If there is a better, more popular term that culture begins to use that accurately describes my position, then I'll gladly use that term.

The fact that something has been done for 50 years doesn't make it correct.

However, your suggested term "Pro-Fetal Life" is not a label that I could personally use because the definition you've provided is not something I believe.

You don't believe that a fetus has the right to live.

And for what it's worth, I don't think a single person on this forum has come forward and said they would utilize your new label given the definition that you've provided.

Perhaps you don't understand how CF works. It is a discussion forum. I put a topic out for discussion and debate. Whether anyone uses the term I suggested is irrelevant.

If you think you can come up with a better and more accurate term than "Pro-Life" that people who are "against abortion" can agree with, I'll gladly use your new label.

Again, pro-life is inaccurate. If you want to use an inaccurate term that is up to you.

 

[Archivist]

I've never met a single person who was killed during their fetal stages. Have you?

I have not.

 

[SPF]

And folks, let’s get this thread back on topic. The question is the use of pro-life by people who are actually pro-fetal life. Why shouldn’t pro-life go back to the original meaning? Why don’t those opposed to abortion latch on to a more accurate title?

I think the problem being revealed is that the definition of Pro-Fetal Life is so narrow that nobody here on this forum, nor anyone I know in real life would actually be Pro-Fetal Life.

Pro-Fetal Life: Abortion should not be permitted even to save the life of the pregnant woman.

I'm not Pro-Fetal Life, is anyone reading this Pro-Fetal Life?

 

[Archivist]

I think the problem being revealed is that the definition of Pro-Fetal Life is so narrow that nobody here on this forum, nor anyone I know in real life would actually be Pro-Fetal Life.

Pro-Fetal Life: Abortion should not be permitted even to save the life of the pregnant woman.

I'm not Pro-Fetal Life, is anyone reading this Pro-Fetal Life?

If you have been reading the thread you know that is the official view of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[SPF]

Again, pro-life is inaccurate. If you want to use an inaccurate term that is up to you.

Well until I find a better one in the dictionary what am I supposed to do? Do you think the next time someone asks me if I'm pro-life I should give a 1 minute exposition on the term and make sure they understand that when I call myself pro-life that I'm only speaking in relation to abortion?

And I would argue that it's not actually an inaccurate term. It is perhaps, not specific enough for your liking, but it is still accurate. It is accurate that I am pro-life when it comes to the topic of abortion.

I suppose ultimately it sounds like you think there need to be lots of definitions and labels that accurately cover the whole spectrum of people and their beliefs regarding abortion. Sort of like the fact that there is manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree murder, vehicular homicide, etc... Perhaps there should be like 10 different terms with different specific definitions for those who are against abortion so that we can make sure we are accurately labeling everyone.

Personally, I think it's a lot easier to simply stick with what we've done for 50 years. I'm Pro-Life, and if you want to get into the specifics of what that means to me, we can discuss it. But I am accurately called Pro-Life because I agree with the definition that I am "against abortion"

 

[Archivist]

Well until I find a better one in the dictionary what am I supposed to do?

You can do whatever you want.

Do you think the next time someone asks me if I'm pro-life I should give a 1 minute exposition on the term and make sure they understand that when I call myself pro-life that I'm only speaking in relation to abortion?

That is up to you.

And I would argue that it's not actually an inaccurate term. It is perhaps, not specific enough for your liking, but it is still accurate. It is accurate that I am pro-life when it comes to the topic of abortion.

But it is inaccurate. Remember in the OP I said that I was only talking about those who would not allow a pregnant woman to have an abortion to save her own life. You can’t say that you are pro-life if you are taking a position that calls for the death of one of the parties. If that doesn’t apply to you then I do not know why you are arguing the point.

I suppose ultimately it sounds like you think there need to be lots of definitions and labels that accurately cover the whole spectrum of people and their beliefs regarding abortion. Sort of like the fact that there is manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree murder, vehicular homicide, etc... Perhaps there should be like 10 different terms with different specific definitions for those who are against abortion so that we can make sure we are accurately labeling everyone.

It wouldn’t require that many terms.

Personally, I think it's a lot easier to simply stick with what we've done for 50 years.

Yes, stick with something even if it is wrong just because it has b en done for 50 years.

I'm Pro-Life, and if you want to get into the specifics of what that means to me, we can discuss it. But I am accurately called Pro-Life because I agree with the definition that I am "against abortion"

Your call.

 

[SPF]

I was only talking about those who would not allow a pregnant woman to have an abortion to save her own life. You can’t say that you are pro-life if you are taking a position that calls for the death of one of the parties.

That’s absurd. A person can be pro-life, meaning they are against abortion and support the preservation of life and still recognize that there may be a terrible situation in which both the mother and unborn child are in imminent danger and a doctor only has the capacity to save one.

And if the unborn was before the age of viability, it would be obvious that the only person being saved is the mother.

If you want to talk about using accurate terminology, we shouldn’t even call situations like that abortion.

 

[SkyWriting]

But it isn't what we are discussing, nor is abortion murder.

I'm claiming it is, and including it in the discussion.

 

[Archivist]

I'm claiming it is, and including it in the discussion.

No, it isn’t and that isn’t what this thread is about. If you want to discuss that question start your own thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it isn’t and that isn’t what this thread is about. If you want to discuss that question start your own thread.

I'm not asking any question. I'm stating that abortion murders a life and it's relevant.
Having been there, that's my assessment of the situation.

Now, your claim is that the "No Abortion" stand would likely
result in the death of a pregnant woman. Likely, it would not.
So your claim fails.

On the other hand, a "No Abortion" stand would result in the
development of artificial wombs, and increasing the likelyhood
of adoption, which are both good.

 

[Edyos]

In my opinion, the life of the mother is more important than the baby.
I am pro-life, But I do not agree to save the baby and let the mother die on purpose. If it happens that the mother dies unexpectedly then no problem.

 

[SPF]

In my opinion, the life of the mother is more important than the baby.

What is that based on? Does a person’s moral worth increase with age? Does a person’s moral worth increase with independence? Does a person’s moral worth increase based upon their location?

What is a human’s moral worth and value based upon that we could even say one human possesses more moral worth than another?

 

[Edyos]

What is that based on? Does a person’s moral worth increase with age? Does a person’s moral worth increase with independence? Does a person’s moral worth increase based upon their location?

What is a human’s moral worth and value based upon that we could even say one human possesses more moral worth than another?

Ok, maybe I generalized it. I give you an example so i can explain myself.
Let's say a mother is pregnant in the third month, she then finds out that she has cancer and the only way to save herself is to use chemotherapy, but if she does it will kill the baby.

What do you do in this case?
I would personally choose the mother, not because it is more moral, it just makes more sense.

But it can be anything really, there is a building on fire and there is a room full of fetuses boxes and there is a little girl, you can save only one? who would you save? the girl of course, because it is more logical, she is alive and been born already. It doesn't mean that the fetus or baby is not alive.

 

[SPF]

there is a building on fire and there is a room full of fetuses boxes and there is a little girl, you can save only one? who would you save? the girl of course, because it is more logical, she is alive and been born already.

So is it age then that determines the “logical” choice on who to save?

So if you were in that burning building alongside someone who was 8 months older than you, if a fireman came in and could only save one, you would agree that you should die because it’s more logical to save the older human?

 

[Dan1988]

In my opinion, the life of the mother is more important than the baby.
I am pro-life, But I do not agree to save the baby and let the mother die on purpose. If it happens that the mother dies unexpectedly then no problem.

My mother would give her life to save my life, a mothers love for her child is very strong. I'm sure most mothers would give their life for their children.
Society considers an unborn child to be sub human and not to be worth as much as a baby who has been born.

Human life begins at the point of conception, scientists have discovered that there is a flash of light at the point of conception. This is the light of life, when the spirit of the person unites with their body so it's not a potential human as many claim, it's actually a whole person in the womb.

The Bible places the same value on a fetus, as it does on a fully formed person.