What does being "pro life" mean to you?

[elder999]

We are all potential fertilizer. But right now, we are living, unique, human beings. And so is a child in its mother's womb.

If it's in the womb, it's a fetus, not a child. If it's not a child, it's not a human being, it's a human becoming.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If it's in the womb, it's a fetus, not a child. If it's not a child, it's not a human being, it's a human becoming.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are a number of people who are in favor of abortion, but who do not want to cross the line into being in favor of killing a human. So they employ terms of art to describe the unborn child as anything other than human, to deny it 'personhood'. It is a zygote, it is a parasite, it is not a child, not a human being, certainly not a member of the human race - if it were, we'd have to face the fact that we're killing it for the crime of being unwanted (in some cases).

No matter what terms of art one employs - a fertilized egg in a mother's womb is a new life - it is neither its mother nor its father. It is unique - that combination of genes has never before existed. It is human - it is not a baboon, a chimpanzee, nor a cockroach. This is self-evident and cannot be denied. If you favor abortion, you favor the killing on demand of a new, unique, human life. Call it whatever 'feel good' words you wish, the facts are very clear.

 

[Omar B]

A fertilized human egg is a new, unique, human life. It will become a human baby if brought to term and delivered. So yes, it is a potential baby. But it already a new, unique, human, life.
We are all potential fertilizer. But right now, we are living, unique, human beings. And so is a child in its mother's womb.

That's our sticking point Bill. When we think life beings. I see the embryo as simply a potential not an actual.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's our sticking point Bill. When we think life beings. I see the embryo as simply a potential not an actual.

I agree that we have a sticking point, but I ask you:

Is it alive? I say living cells are alive, not dead.
Is it new and unique? It isn't the mother or father.
Is it human? By definition, a human embryo is human - what else could it be? An embryonic frog is still a frog, though it does not yet hop. No one raises great clouds of dust over the 'frogness' of a tadpole - because there is no point to it - a tadpole is a frog, from the DNA up. Just because it has not yet shed its tail, it will not become a cow or a sheep. And a human embryo is a human.

So in my book, it is a live human being.

Now, I have been careful not to assign a moral value to abortion - other than my own opinion about being against it. I have not said abortion is morally wrong or right, nor have I used emotional buzzwords like murder - I just use the neutral and accurate term 'killing'.

If I were pro choice, I'd admit very simply that I am in favor of the killing of unborn humans on demand. That's an end to it.

Instead, people engage in these interesting bags of words to shy away from being that straightforward - even you, who are often so very blunt.

I think there is a reason for that, and I think the reason is that you do not, in the recesses of your conscience, want to admit that what you advocate allowing the killing of is human. If you do, you fear you will have to grant it the rights of human beings, and then your pro choice stance would be anathema to you.

It's an amazing set of twists and turns - just to avoid calling a spade a spade. The question is not really over the humanity of an unborn child. The question is over why it is so difficult for pro choice people to call an unborn child what it really is.

 

[MBuzzy]

Bill - I realize that you have not used the buzzwords like murder, but you are attempting to attach an emotional aspect to all of those who are not "pro-life." In that you are implying that they are all in support of murder. Either way, it is still a matter of phrasing. I would certainly not say that I am in support of "killing unborn humans on demand" although I realize that is your opinion of the matter.

I personally am in favor of a mother's right to choose, based on her rational decision of what is best for herself and her unborn child. I do believe that a fetus, zygote, whatever is a potentially unborn child. But I also do not try to "dehumanize" or "over humanize" the status of the child. Just as you suggest that we all dehumanize by applying less personal words to the fetus, I would submit that the majority of the pro-life movement attempts to "over humanize" the child, by swinging the emotions in their own favor. It is in fact an emotional argument and that is how people debate. This is a highly personal issue for most people for some reason.

Personally, I view it from what I believe to be a logical, rational point of view. As a fetus, the child is a potential human and not a frog. It is a unique new life. And it does not have the ability to make its own decision. It is not yet a conscious organism. At early stages, it is a loose organization of cells, nothing more (though they are human cells in the process of being organized into a viable human being). Through development, it becomes a human, but at early stages, it is still in development. Based on the fact that it is not conscious, it cannot make decisions, it depends on the mother to make ALL decisions regarding its life - or death. The mother can feed it alcohol, drugs, diseases, etc and it has no choice...that is the same effect as killing it. If she rationally decides that it is best to abort the child, I support that. I do like the UK's policy of having two doctors sign off though and I only support early term abortions for good reasons, not as birth control. Personal opinions though. I take no direction from a religion.

There are plenty of children living in poverty, with disease, with abusive parents, in an unloving home, the product of parents who never wanted them who wish they had never been born. They are a drain on the society in terms of welfare, they will most likely grow up to be a drain on the society in the form of criminals or more welfare - of not fault of their own, just born to the wrong person.

Now take away EVERY woman's option to abort and imagine how many MORE of those unloved, unsupported, miserable children there would be. I would rather prevent the suffering of a child in advance than worry about taking the life of a collection of cells.

Plus, it really pisses me off to see children running around with parents who don't love them and don't care for them, when I lost a child that I would have loved and cared for. I would rather they had never gotten pregnant or made the responsible decision and aborted the child. Especially when many of them are clinging to their refusal to abort based on religious beliefs and not a rational determination of whether they could realistically support the child.

This IS NOT a black and white issue. There is a lot more to it than "Human," "Unique," and "Alive." Especially at that point in development.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would submit that the majority of the pro-life movement attempts to "over humanize" the child, by swinging the emotions in their own favor. It is in fact an emotional argument and that is how people debate. This is a highly personal issue for most people for some reason.

I agree. But my terms are very simple and not emotional at all. It is alive, it is unique, it is human. No one thus far has attempted to deny that. Yet, when I say it is a living, unique, human, they have a problem with it and want to use other terms.

Personally, I view it from what I believe to be a logical, rational point of view. As a fetus, the child is a potential human and not a frog. It is a unique new life. And it does not have the ability to make its own decision. It is not yet a conscious organism.

As I have previously stated, many adult humans either never had or have lost those capabilities, but we do not deny them personhood. Killing a person in a coma would still be considered a crime.

So I have to say that IMHO, having consciousness or rational thought is not required for a person to be a person.

At early stages, it is a loose organization of cells, nothing more (though they are human cells in the process of being organized into a viable human being).

Correct.

Through development, it becomes a human, but at early stages, it is still in development.

That is an assertion cloaked as a statement of fact. In reality, those cells are human, as you have said. It does not 'become' human, it 'is' human. It 'becomes' a child, just as a child becomes an adult, but human it is.

If it were not human, what else would it be? Everything is something. Frog, bird, rock. It is a clump of cells - what kind of cells? Human cells. Is any clump of human cells a human? No, only new unique cells that will normally become children. So an embryo is human.

Based on the fact that it is not conscious, it cannot make decisions, it depends on the mother to make ALL decisions regarding its life - or death. The mother can feed it alcohol, drugs, diseases, etc and it has no choice...that is the same effect as killing it. If she rationally decides that it is best to abort the child, I support that. I do like the UK's policy of having two doctors sign off though and I only support early term abortions for good reasons, not as birth control. Personal opinions though. I take no direction from a religion.

I appreciate your opinion, and support your right to it, but I disagree with it, and still assert you're going to great lengths to avoid calling a spade a spade.

There are plenty of children living in poverty, with disease, with abusive parents, in an unloving home, the product of parents who never wanted them who wish they had never been born. They are a drain on the society in terms of welfare, they will most likely grow up to be a drain on the society in the form of criminals or more welfare - of not fault of their own, just born to the wrong person.

I can not find a reply to this statement that is not incendiary. It's kind of scary if that's your rationale for abortion.

This IS NOT a black and white issue. There is a lot more to it than "Human," "Unique," and "Alive." Especially at that point in development.

I agree that it is not black and white, nor is it simple. I don't propose that I have the answers to the problem of abortion - only an opinion, like you. I confess to some conflicting thoughts regarding certain types of abortion, like I suppose many people do, whether pro or con abortion.

But my terms are simple and accurate. Being pro abortion means being in favor of killing an unborn human under whatever circumstances one feels abortion is acceptable. It is not an unborn thing, it is not a clump of cells along the lines of a booger or an unused egg or some semen, it is just what I described - new, unique, human life. What else could it be?

I'm sorry that it squicks people, and I'm sorry that many who are pro abortion don't want to think about it in those terms, but it really is what it is. Using lots of artful phrases to de-humanize an unborn child does not make it less human. It is and remains a human, and if we believe that killing it is OK, then fine - but it remains what it is.

 

[Omar B]

I agree that we have a sticking point, but I ask you:
Is it alive? I say living cells are alive, not dead.
Is it new and unique? It isn't the mother or father.
Is it human? By definition, a human embryo is human - what else could it be? An embryonic frog is still a frog, though it does not yet hop. No one raises great clouds of dust over the 'frogness' of a tadpole - because there is no point to it - a tadpole is a frog, from the DNA up. Just because it has not yet shed its tail, it will not become a cow or a sheep. And a human embryo is a human.
So in my book, it is a live human being.
Now, I have been careful not to assign a moral value to abortion - other than my own opinion about being against it. I have not said abortion is morally wrong or right, nor have I used emotional buzzwords like murder - I just use the neutral and accurate term 'killing'.
If I were pro choice, I'd admit very simply that I am in favor of the killing of unborn humans on demand. That's an end to it.
Instead, people engage in these interesting bags of words to shy away from being that straightforward - even you, who are often so very blunt.
I think there is a reason for that, and I think the reason is that you do not, in the recesses of your conscience, want to admit that what you advocate allowing the killing of is human. If you do, you fear you will have to grant it the rights of human beings, and then your pro choice stance would be anathema to you.
It's an amazing set of twists and turns - just to avoid calling a spade a spade. The question is not really over the humanity of an unborn child. The question is over why it is so difficult for pro choice people to call an unborn child what it really is.

Sure, but The concept “entity” is (implicitly) the start of man’s conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure. It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe. An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, till it's reached that point I don't think of it as much. So until it's separate from it's mother I don't see it as a being.

I don't have the catholic beliefs you do but I do have an uncle who's a priest so I know where you are coming from. Though I can't agree with you.

 

[MBuzzy]

As I have previously stated, many adult humans either never had or have lost those capabilities, but we do not deny them personhood. Killing a person in a coma would still be considered a crime.

That is not true, there is such a thing as a medical proxy when you cannot make a decision for yourself. When the "plug is pulled" it is killing, but it is no more murder than abortion is. There are many patients who have no hope of coming out of a coma. We don't deny them personhood...and you can define personhood however you want, apply whatever label, but it is still a decision of rationality, not emotion.

If it were not human, what else would it be? Everything is something. Frog, bird, rock. It is a clump of cells - what kind of cells? Human cells. Is any clump of human cells a human? No, only new unique cells that will normally become children. So an embryo is human.

This what I don't get....no one has ever denied that it is human cells. I know that the allusions to other animals are for illustration, but it isn't necessary, we know that it is human. It isn't a matter of whether it is human or not. I think that is that basis of the primary argument between pro-life and pro-choice. (notice, a HUGE connotation difference in using the term "pro-choice" vs. "pro-abortion," and generally the "pro-life" camp likes to attach the whole pro-abortion lable to villify that side) Pro-life people are arguing that you can't kill a human and pro-choice argues that the mother should have a choice in the matter. To be perfectly honest, we're arguing two completely different things. That is why the debate will NEVER be solved.

I don't support murder. I don't like the idea of killing babies - or embryos or fetuses for that matter. I don't like the idea, but I support a mother's right to choose - when the decision is made rationally with fore-thought.

I appreciate your opinion, and support your right to it, but I disagree with it, and still assert you're going to great lengths to avoid calling a spade a spade.

And I greatly appreciate that. But I also feel that you go to great length to villify pro-choice people. The argument that these terms are used to de-humanize a baby - to me - isn't valid. Who cares what you call it. You can call it anything you want, that isn't the point that I'm arguing. If you want to use the term "baby-killer" that is fine, because it doesn't describe me. The "spade a spade" thing....is just not relevant to me. I only believe that the mother has a choice, no more.

I could go so far as to say that pro-life people are in favor of "Stripping away the rights of innocent mothers, who don't have the means to support a child." That they are "forcing these poor innocent children to destroy their lives as the result of a single mistake." etc etc etc....it comes from both sides. Pro-choice "dehumanizes" and pro-life "takes away rights." That part of the argument again, is irrelevant to me. In this debate, I'm concerned about whether the mother has a choice as to what happens with her body and her unborn child (just as she will be making the choices for that child from conception up until the kid can make its own decisions, which can be years). You're concerned about whether the fetus has a right to life or not. Two different arguments.

I can not find a reply to this statement that is not incendiary. It's kind of scary if that's your rationale for abortion.

That isn't my rationale - it is the same as the "frog argument," just an illustration to demonstrate a point.

I agree that it is not black and white, nor is it simple. I don't propose that I have the answers to the problem of abortion - only an opinion, like you. I confess to some conflicting thoughts regarding certain types of abortion, like I suppose many people do, whether pro or con abortion.

I have a great deal of respect for that - I only wish that as many other people has this much clarity of thought and self-actualization to their own opinions.

But my terms are simple and accurate. Being pro abortion means being in favor of killing an unborn human under whatever circumstances one feels abortion is acceptable. It is not an unborn thing, it is not a clump of cells along the lines of a booger or an unused egg or some semen, it is just what I described - new, unique, human life. What else could it be?

Again, a great deal of respect. Define terms, stick to them. Most people on both camps have done the same. My theory is simply that everyone is arguing oranges to apples....different arguments.

I'm sorry that it squicks people, and I'm sorry that many who are pro abortion don't want to think about it in those terms, but it really is what it is. Using lots of artful phrases to de-humanize an unborn child does not make it less human. It is and remains a human, and if we believe that killing it is OK, then fine - but it remains what it is.

Again, that's fine if you want to think of it as killing or murder or whatever. I'm not trying to dehumanize anything. I'm fully aware of the consequences of abortion. A lost life. I have personal experience withit. That experience doesn't change my opinion though. Again, the basis of many people's argument is the emotional connotation of words. Which is a debating tactic - not a strong one, but a tactic nonetheless. Definition and connotation is everything!

 

[Live True]

In response to the original OP, I think "pro life" SHOULD be refer to more than just abortion, as to be otherwise often implies hypocrisy.

I have not been able to read all the posts (most, though) so my apologies if I am broaching a topic that has already been mentioned.

In most of my personal discussions with others as well as the random readings on the topic, it seems that a majority of folks who are pro-life in regards to abortion also support the death penalty. This has always seemed to be hypocritical/disingenuous to me.

The argument is basically that a child's life has value before it is born into the world, but afterwards that same life has less value? I get that crimes, etc. have been commmitted, but I don't buy the argument that this person's life then has less value. It may be necessary to end that life because of the threat it provides to others, because thier acts were so atrocious, and/or because they are truly damaged with no possible rehabilation. That does not mean thier life is not valuable; it simply means the value of thier life does not equate to thier threat/cost/etc. In other words, you are taking a life and no amount of pretty phrasing and rationalization takes that fact away. I still, given that knowledge, do beleive that it is a necessary act in rare cases.

I believe life is fundamentally sacred, but I also believe that you cannot make rules across the board to fit all situations. Even believing in the sacredness of life, sometimes that life must be taken. It is an ugly but true fact. Each case, whether it be consideration of abortion, a sudden self-defense situation, consideration of the death penalty, or euthanasia (there, hit all the hot buttons) is a consideration of whether or not you take a life.

For the record, I am pro-choice, mainly because I think this should be a personal decision that both parents decide...I think Astrobiologist's story is a fine example of what SHOULD happen.

Ultimately, I don't think those choices should be strictly mandated by law. I think it should be either a matter of personal choice or a very broadly defined law that allows case by case review. I like the compromise that Tez notes with the 22 weeks and 2 doctor sign off, and the clauses for late term in specific situations. We should not make something a law because it makes life less complicated and our choices easier. I don't belive the social contract was meant to support conscience by law, parenting by law, or any similar legal mandate that removes our personal responsibilities...but I'm digressing.

Pro-life SHOULD refer to more than abortion, or you are being hypocritical and dishonest.

 

[Marginal]

Yes, abortion was once illegal in the USA, and some women went out of the country to have abortions or had them performed by unlicensed providers or by doctors who refused to obey the law clandestinely.

I have never believed in the argument that laws should be changed just because some people ignore them.

Studies have shown that the rates don't change much if abortions are made illegal. Deaths and injuries from complications just increase.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sure, but The concept “entity” is (implicitly) the start of man’s conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure. It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe. An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, till it's reached that point I don't think of it as much. So until it's separate from it's mother I don't see it as a being.

I don't have the catholic beliefs you do but I do have an uncle who's a priest so I know where you are coming from. Though I can't agree with you.

A baby is hardly self-sufficient; on the contrary, it is dependent upon its parent(s) for nearly everything. It could not survive on its own, and I doubt many first-grade students could either. So I'm not sure your definition of 'entity' as being 'self-sufficient' really stands up here.

 

[Omar B]

Oh I think it does. It becomes a separate and unique entity (separate and unique from the rest of the world around it) when it draws it's own breath. Whether it needs help to survive is neither here nor there, as mammals that's just how it is, we are raised till we are self sufficient. The first stage is a child’s awareness of objects, of things—which represents the (implicit) concept “entity.” The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual field—which represents the (implicit) concept “identity.” Before there is a concept of entity and identity I just don't accept it as having rights.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh I think it does. It becomes a separate and unique entity (separate and unique from the rest of the world around it) when it draws it's own breath. Whether it needs help to survive is neither here nor there, as mammals that's just how it is, we are raised till we are self sufficient. The first stage is a child’s awareness of objects, of things—which represents the (implicit) concept “entity.” The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual field—which represents the (implicit) concept “identity.” Before there is a concept of entity and identity I just don't accept it as having rights.

If you could take a step back from this right now, you might see this as somewhat contrived.

 

[Omar B]

You may think it's contrived but that's how I feel, it's not "entity" till it leaves the mother. When it draws it's own breath and can define itself as separate from that around it, that's when life begins.

 

[MBuzzy]

Live True has really hit the central point of my opinion - this is not an issue that should have a sweeping law covering all situations, all situations. There are simply too many ifs and exceptions. Choice and responsibility is a better road in this case so that the mother and parents have the latitude to act in the best interest of themselves and their unborn child.

Simply making the blanket law that "No abortions shall be allowed" seems to complicate things more.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You may think it's contrived but that's how I feel, it's not "entity" till it leaves the mother. When it draws it's own breath and can define itself as separate from that around it, that's when life begins.

I understand your position clearly - the part I think is a tad contrived is the dancing tapestry of words you have been using to define what is and is not a human being. As you've redrafted your definition repeatedly, and I've deconstructed and denuded it each time, you fall back and come up with a new set of words instead of defending your statements.

Ultimately, we come to this - and even here, you can't quite get your head around the difference between your opinion and the facts. Your opinion is that life begins when the baby draws its first breath. That is not what you said, however. You stated it as fact. Unfortunately, you can't defend that statement, QED.

 

[Omar B]

You can't defend yours either Bill, I say life begins when the child draws breath, you believe that it begins when the sperm hits the egg. No matter how many times you state that you believe that it won't change how I think about when life begins. We have differing ways of looking at things and that's the crux of the issue that's been dogging this country on the same issue.

 

[blindsage]

If it comes down the the mother's life or the fetus, it's not that hard of a choice to everyone involved. They aren't weighted the same. One has years of experience and knowledge. The other one's blank and can only be weighed on potential.

I have no problem with acknowledging that, if you read the rest of my post it clearly says that.

 

[Phoenix44]

The problem, as I see it...

That pretty much says it.

 

[nwalker]

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; Jeremiah 1:5A

I have a question for Mr. Omar B.

but first I would like to say you are correct, no matter the argument at the end of the day what I say or what he says or she says will not change your mind or anyone elses...

The topic is what does "pro life" mean to me and to me that means that one is against abortion.

Sure the words "pro life" together means as someone stated "anti death" but in the world of PC it has become used as a lable to mean against abortion.

Now to my questions...
Just too fully understand what you are saying please, if you would like, further share with us your views.

• What constitutes having a concept of entity and identity?
• How do you define concept of entity and identity?
• What is it about being able to take a breath that gives a baby this concept?
• If it is the ability to breath on your own, once a person stops being able to do that does that person lose this concept and thus can be killed?