What is Pro-Life?
Those of you who have been around here for awhile know that I like digging -- and thinking.
I don't like to just spout out common thought or regurgitate what I see online. In other words, I like to seek out the truth and then share it.
This issue is a case in point.
I keep seeing posts on social media, and articles about "You're really not pro-life if...." followed by a litany of arguments.
The argument goes something like this:
"You're not really Pro-Life, you are really Pro-birth.
Because you only care about people before they are born.
You are not for government funding for adults and children who are needy, plus you aren't for open borders, you are Pro-war and I bet you are for the Death Penalty too. "
Is this argument accurate?
Let's reason it out.
Why This Topic
But before we go there -- let me say that I hope you will stick around even if you disagree with me. I'm happy to talk about your thoughts, to listen, and to be open. These are health-related issues. I assume that there will be some of you who think this doesn't belong here, but I think it does.
We can and must talk about these things. Because they are important.
AND this is about health. It's about the health (and possibly the life) of the mother, right? And about the health and life of the little one inside.
So it ties into my blog's mission of healthy living.
It's often seen as a taboo topic, but I don't think it should be. Why should we not talk about tough things?
By listening to each other, we can learn.
And I'm for sure open to hearing what you think on the issue.
Are You REALLY Pro-Life?
First of all, before we get into the argument, let's talk about what being Pro-Life actually means.
What Pro-Life Is
The Pro-Life Position is to be opposed to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and often extends to embryo-destructive medical procedures.
Pro-Choice is the opposite position.
But You Don't Support Life After Birth
The Argument: If you were really Pro-Life, you would support the baby AFTER it's born.
The support of the baby AFTER it's born includes free birth control, free childcare, extended welfare benefits, and more.
Here's the deal--this argument is patently wrong on two points:
It's not the Government's Job
One can defend the unborn, and the elderly, and the infirm, and yet not think that the federal government should be the provider of birth control, childcare, and more.
Other alternatives (and much better, in my estimation) for such assistance are churches, communities, families, and local government.
Does one have to be for the federal government doing everything in order to be a compassionate human being?
In any event, the expansion of the federal government's powers both goes against the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") and has a poor track record of actually benefitting those it claims to help.
We Are Limited People with Limited Resources
Wanting to give someone the privilege of life does not mean that one needs to be just as enthusiastic about or involved in making that person's life comfortable.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have compassion, but we all have limited resources, whether financial, time, emotional, or otherwise.
Moreover, no one can participate equally in all aspects of helping others. One person might focus on preventing abortion, while another might focus on stopping human trafficking. Another might be doing his best to eradicate hunger.
Just because each person isn't equally involved in all of the other aspects of a "full life" does not mean that there isn't care or concern for the same.
This article makes a great point. Is a firefighter less dedicated to saving life just because he isn't equally dedicated to making sure that the person saved from the fire has adequate clothing and food after being saved?
But You Don't Care About Refugees and Immigrants
The argument: If you're not for welcoming all refugees and immigrants into one's country, then you are not pro-life.
Again, this argument is a logical fallacy. Yes, we should be caring about refugees and immigrants. My heart breaks seeing the horror that these people have to deal with.
However, it's simply not sustainable to open our borders and allow everyone in who wants to come in.
A country is not a country if it has no borders.
Think about it this way -- do you think we should all leave our doors open to our houses and give anyone who wants it free access to our food and our homes? I think this is a valid analogy to what some think we should do regarding our county's borders.
My position is that we should work on making immigration easier and figure out other ways to help with the refugee issue with better vetting, safe zones, or other solutions.
Having other solutions about the refugee and immigration problem that are different than open borders does not mean that one is not pro-life.
But You're War Monger
This argument assumes that pro-lifers are fine with having babies born, but they are way too quick to pull the trigger to get involved in military action in other countries that will lead to many deaths of soldiers and innocents.
I am personally deeply concerned about the amount of military aggression in other countries. However, even many libertarians (who are typically isolationist) are seeing that the current world situation at times demands using force.
It's a terrible conundrum, but at times using force might be necessary to save the lives of others.
Sorting through the pros and cons of military involvement at any particular time is very complicated because it's hard to discern what the truth of the matter is. However, killing in the womb and euthanasia are obvious life and death situations when there is nothing tantamount to self-defense or preventing aggression involved in the situation at hand.
What About the Death Penalty?
This is a Red Herring argument.
An unborn child is never guilty of anything deserving of punishment, let alone death.
Many of those who oppose abortion are, in fact, against the Death Penalty, and I myself am generally against it, mainly due to injustices in the court system and because it is often unjustly applied in our society.
On the other hand, I recognize that this also is a very difficult topic.
The main thing to remember here is my first point -- that this is false logic. You can't compare the death of, for example, a convicted criminal with that of an innocent unborn child.
There are more topics within this argument that could be covered, however, these are the main ones that I typically encounter.
In conclusion, the definition of the Pro-Life position is basically to be opposed to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
Of course we should all strive to figure out ways to address the ills that surround us of poverty, unwanted pregnancies, the refugee crisis and immigration and more. However, those issues are not integral parts of the Pro-Life position.
Someone once said this regarding this issue. "I can be wrong about the best way to combat poverty, help refugees, or federal fiscal policy, but I can't be wrong on the life issue." The right and wrong in this situation is far too clear.
What really is disconcerting about such articles is that typically (always?) they are written by people who embrace the Democrat Party which has a staunch pro-choice stand including a history of their Senators voting to remove all limits on abortion, for all 9 months.
Instead of allowing such illogical arguments to flourish, let's look at the facts and then move forward with conversations from there, now that we have clarity on what Pro-Life really means.
What do you think?
Is the Pro-Life position hypocritical?