Pro-Life Hypocrisy

[Radagast]

This subject has many facets.

Pro-life really means anti-abortion. It doesn't really mean pro LIFE.
It means exclusively pro baby human life. What is the definition of life: is it a baby human only? Why isn't a baby cow or chicken considered "alive"?
Is capital punishment pro-life? Is war pro-life?
Plants are alive but don't have a conscience, so is consciousness a prerequisite for being alive? If so, what parts are important? All creatures have varying levels of consciousness.
So I am not pushing vegan and execution agendas here, but the subjects overlap the pro-life topic.
But we really should not declare ourselves to be pro-life unless we respect ALL life.

Basically, you're saying that political and moral opinions are invalid unless they agree 100% with your own. Good to know.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Note: I am not here to debate the morality of abortion, but rather, the legality of it and the hypocrisy of the ¨pro-life¨ movement.


I have noticed that the so-called pro-life movement is, for the most part, divorced from reality. It is devoid of critical thinking, empathy, and understanding why people get abortions and is instead full of insults and appeals to emotion. If the ¨pro-life¨ movement really cared about life, it would have:

• Ended the War on Drugs/Legalized marijuana.
• Passed a $15 minimum wage law.
• Got paid maternity leave laws passed.
• Expanded the welfare state.
• Strengthed unions.
• Increased taxes on the rich.
• Provided sex education that was not focused on abstinence.
• Made healthcare single-payer, free, and government funded.
• Opened up borders with Latin America and provided help to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, the ¨pro-life¨ movement did the exact opposite of what I listed. There is nothing Christian about forcing people to have babies and then ditching them. In addition, they lack empathy towards rape victims.
The Pro Life Campaign’s definition of love is cruel
Pro-life lawyers fight court's decision to allow 12-year-old rape victim to have an abortion - Independent.ie
How Rape and "Pro-Life" Politics Are Intimately Connected | HuffPost

So just so I understand your position correctly, if someone is not going along with the agenda of the left, it would be hypocritical to believe that life begins at conception? Couldn't this also be spun around to say that the left is hypocritical because they want all the things you have listed but deny the value and the rights of the life in the womb?

 

[JackRT]

Good points. Terminology is often used carelessly. The same applies to pro-choice. I can't speak for everyone, but pro-choice to me really means anti-criminalization. Not pro-abortion. Any elective abortion (one not done for medical reasons) is undesirable. And I understand how it can be seen as morally suspect. But using the police power of the state to criminalize elective abortion at all stages of pregnancy is simply a worse evil. It's far too authoritarian to declare that the fact of being pregnant completely nullifies a woman's autonomy over her uterus (along with her heart, lungs, kidneys, GI tract, and other organ systems that sustain said pregnancy) for a full 9 months. It gives way too much power to the government. There has to be a compromise. Up to certain point in pregnancy, abortion must be left as a private medical decision between doctor and patient (and any significant others she wishes to include.) After that point, the state can put reasonable restrictions on the procedure. I think most people will see this as fair and sensible.

Very well said. Thank you.

 

[jayem]

It's not hypocrisy, but the most glaring logical contradiction of people opposed to abortion is that many of them also oppose easy access to contraception. Which, when used conscientiously, can eliminate the demand for elective abortion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Note: I am not here to debate the morality of abortion, but rather, the legality of it and the hypocrisy of the ¨pro-life¨ movement.


I have noticed that the so-called pro-life movement is, for the most part, divorced from reality. It is devoid of critical thinking, empathy, and understanding why people get abortions and is instead full of insults and appeals to emotion. If the ¨pro-life¨ movement really cared about life, it would have:

• Ended the War on Drugs/Legalized marijuana.
• Passed a $15 minimum wage law.
• Got paid maternity leave laws passed.
• Expanded the welfare state.
• Strengthed unions.
• Increased taxes on the rich.
• Provided sex education that was not focused on abstinence.
• Made healthcare single-payer, free, and government funded.
• Opened up borders with Latin America and provided help to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, the ¨pro-life¨ movement did the exact opposite of what I listed. There is nothing Christian about forcing people to have babies and then ditching them. In addition, they lack empathy towards rape victims.
The Pro Life Campaign’s definition of love is cruel
Pro-life lawyers fight court's decision to allow 12-year-old rape victim to have an abortion - Independent.ie
How Rape and "Pro-Life" Politics Are Intimately Connected | HuffPost

Your position is ludicrous. Pro life is not the same as pro doormat. One need not bail out everyone that makes a poor decision in order to take a position that killing is wrong. Pro lifers are not motivated by a desire to force women to have babies as they are not forcing women to become pregnant. There is a huge difference between forcing one to have a baby and opposing killing a baby one was not been forced to conceive. Your position assumes that pro lifers must agree with your stance on social justice issues when there is no objective reason that they should. I don't need to go point by point just the general assumption with no objective proof that all the things you listed are actually helpful in preserving life at all is not an assumption I would agree with. I find it divorced from reality and devoid of critical thinking to criticize the pro lifers for disagreeing with subjectively arrived at beliefs, not only on the effectiveness of social justice programs but on the seeming assumption that if one claims to be pro life one becomes more responsible for paying for the bad decisions made by others than those others are. The suggestion is that if you do not clean up the mess they have made for themselves then you are the bad guy.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I only see hypocrisy in trying to save the unborn, but then sending them off to die in war when they reach the age of 18. The pro-life folks need to be pro-life across the board.

So instead of allowing them to make the choice to go off to war, just kill them in the womb, that argument makes no sense, the baby has no say or choice in the issue, where a young 18 year old does.

That not to say I agree with our foreign policy, restraint, soft power, realism, spheres of influence, limited intervention is the way to go other than the "invade the world, invite the world" foreign policy we have since at least Korea.

 

[BWV 565]

Note: I am not here to debate the morality of abortion, but rather, the legality of it and the hypocrisy of the ¨pro-life¨ movement.


I have noticed that the so-called pro-life movement is, for the most part, divorced from reality. It is devoid of critical thinking, empathy, and understanding why people get abortions and is instead full of insults and appeals to emotion. If the ¨pro-life¨ movement really cared about life, it would have:

• Ended the War on Drugs/Legalized marijuana.
• Passed a $15 minimum wage law.
• Got paid maternity leave laws passed.
• Expanded the welfare state.
• Strengthed unions.
• Increased taxes on the rich.
• Provided sex education that was not focused on abstinence.
• Made healthcare single-payer, free, and government funded.
• Opened up borders with Latin America and provided help to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, the ¨pro-life¨ movement did the exact opposite of what I listed. There is nothing Christian about forcing people to have babies and then ditching them. In addition, they lack empathy towards rape victims.

Before I was religious I was anti-abortion. This did not make me popular amongst my friends (not much has changed). I was never aggressive about it and it would only come up occasionally.

That said the majority of people I know who are “pro-life” are not in anyway hypocritical. They believe that child has a life and or soul of his/her own. You do not have the right to end that life.

While I understand as a man it may come off cold me saying this. Even my gut reaction goes against what I believe when it comes to pregnancy born out of rape.

That said as much as ai wish that on no one do not use rape to emotionally manipulate the argument. I won’t even go into statistics as it still happens and is appalling.

You have to ask what did the child do? Nothing I am against the death penalty even for criminals but you are effectively for the death penalty for the innocent child.

Obviously if the Mother’s life is in danger I believe there is moral justification to save the Mother’s life. In the rare case that the infant will die from an incurable condition an argument could also be made.

I see the pro-abortion side thinking only of the Mother. I’ve been told several times that the child is not human while in the womb or is merely an extension of the Mother. Both false claims.

If you can’t raise it adoption is always an option. I’m also for maternal aid especially in cases of rape etc if the Mother wishes to keep the child.

 

[Belk]

So instead of allowing them to make the choice to go off to war, just kill them in the womb, that argument makes no sense, the baby has no say or choice in the issue, where a young 18 year old does.

That not to say I agree with our foreign policy, restraint, soft power, realism, spheres of influence, limited intervention is the way to go other than the "invade the world, invite the world" foreign policy we have since at least Korea.

No baby has had a choice or a say in any issue. This is because they are incapable of having those things.

 

[BWV 565]

No baby has had a choice or a say in any issue. This is because they are incapable of having those things.

I don’t anyone is saying they are capable that’s why we must protect them. It would be like advocating the killing of babies/children/adults who are mentally retarded.

You have to protect life regardless or it is a slippery slope. Based anyone who is an inconvenience be it unwanted child, mentally or physically handicapped and the elderly are all valid targets if you follow that train of thought it it’s logical conclusion.

 

[BWV 565]

Apology I’m on my phone and can’t seem to edit the typos.

 

[Belk]

I don’t anyone is saying they are capable that’s why we must protect them.

Should we give a tree a choice on if it is cut down? It has no voice either.

It would be like advocating the killing of babies/children/adults who are mentally retarded.

No, no it would not.

You have to protect life regardless or it is a slippery slope.

I always find it interesting how people use the broad term "life" as a euphemism for human embryos. I don't see anyone claiming we must provide humans eyes as hosts for Helminths because life is precious.

Based anyone who is an inconvenience be it unwanted child, mentally or physically handicapped and the elderly are all valid targets if you follow that train of thought it it’s logical conclusion.

That is not it's logical conclusion though. The slippery slope is, in point of fact, a logical fallacy.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

No baby has had a choice or a say in any issue. This is because they are incapable of having those things.

So because they have no choice, just kill them in the womb, I'll never understand the same people protesting war, or the death penalty (admitingly not good things), are OK with Murder in the womb, we might as well use that rationalism to rationalize ourselves out of existence, which is nothing but nihilism.

 

[Belk]

So because they have no choice, just kill them in the womb, I'll never understand the same people protesting war, or the death penalty (admitingly not good things), are OK with Murder in the womb, we might as well use that rationalism to rationalize ourselves out of existence, which is nothing but nihilism.

Because they are not a rational agent and therefore it is not murder. If you do not understand it you will never be able to argue against it effectively. Case in point this has nothing to do with nihilism.

 

[usexpat97]

If the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" were accepted to be just monikers, I'd be okay with that. But there are two behaviors pro-lifers do all the time that really annoy me:

1) "Abortion is wrong. It says in the Bible, 'Thou shalt not murder'."

No, really?? You mean--murder is wrong? I didn't know that! That changes everything!


2) "Pro-choicers are really pro-death. They just support abortion."

No, actually...when we say we're pro-choice, we mean it. Seriously. Do you really think pro-choicers will object if you choose life?

Come on now. You know the entire question hinges around whether abortion is killing a live, separate human being. The answer to that question is NOT clear, and not everyone believes the same way you do. You know that. You knew that a long time ago.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Because they are not a rational agent and therefore it is not murder. If you do not understand it you will never be able to argue against it effectively. Case in point this has nothing to do with nihilism.

Your arguing over a baby being murdered in the womb as OK, because quote "it not a rational agent" , it clear America can never agree, we should just divorce as a nation.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Note: I am not here to debate the morality of abortion, but rather, the legality of it and the hypocrisy of the ¨pro-life¨ movement.


I have noticed that the so-called pro-life movement is, for the most part, divorced from reality. It is devoid of critical thinking, empathy, and understanding why people get abortions and is instead full of insults and appeals to emotion. If the ¨pro-life¨ movement really cared about life, it would have:

• Ended the War on Drugs/Legalized marijuana.
• Passed a $15 minimum wage law.
• Got paid maternity leave laws passed.
• Expanded the welfare state.
• Strengthed unions.
• Increased taxes on the rich.
• Provided sex education that was not focused on abstinence.
• Made healthcare single-payer, free, and government funded.
• Opened up borders with Latin America and provided help to undocumented immigrants.

Instead, the ¨pro-life¨ movement did the exact opposite of what I listed. There is nothing Christian about forcing people to have babies and then ditching them. In addition, they lack empathy towards rape victims.
The Pro Life Campaign’s definition of love is cruel
Pro-life lawyers fight court's decision to allow 12-year-old rape victim to have an abortion - Independent.ie
How Rape and "Pro-Life" Politics Are Intimately Connected | HuffPost

No one forces people to have babies and then ditch them. Early in your OP you speak against people making appeals to emotion - is that not exactly what you've done in making such a claim.

 

[Belk]

Your arguing over a baby being murdered in the womb as OK, because quote "it not a rational agent" ,

No, I'm arguing it is not murder and giving my criteria why.

it clear America can never agree, we should just divorce as a nation.

Running away solves nothing.

 

[Desk trauma]

Your arguing over a baby being murdered in the womb as OK, because quote "it not a rational agent" , it clear America can never agree, we should just divorce as a nation.

How would splitting the country up resolve people disagreeing on abortion?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I understand what you are saying. The women who are asking for abortion, with notable exceptions, are engaging in sexual relations for personal pleasure, not for what it was intended for.

And yet it is quite the enjoyable experience... if done properly.

So, if they want to have the freedom to do whatever they want to do, then rather than hurting an unanticipated and unwanted living human organism AGAIN, they should just get "fixed!" Then, the pro-life and pro-licentiousness debates would all but go away!

Nothing says "pro-life" like encouraging sterilization.

Ever occur to you that they want children a just not at that particular moment?

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

How would splitting the country up resolve people disagreeing on abortion?

Good question , pro-lifers can go to pro-life areas of country, while pro-choice folks can go to the west coast or north east. We don't agree, divorce is tragic, even a period of ex-commincation is needed, yet in the case of this nation giving in to the opostion is not compromisable on the issue of life in the womb, it seems the opostion wants nothing but total surrender in the culture war, I chose martyrdom by the oppressive opostion.