Does 'Anti-Abortion' equate 'Pro-Life?'

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:46:38 -0400

Think about the actions and attitudes of people who oppose abortion. Does "Anti-Abortion" mean the same as "Pro-Life?" Is there a difference? How do you define each term? What does it mean to be fully "pro-life?"

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Aug 4 at 2015 8:52 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:52:47 -0400

What say you??

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Aug 4 at 2015 9:11 AM

SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:11:06 -0400

My understanding on this subject is that sometimes an abortion is needed to save the mother's life.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 4 at 2015 9:19 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:19:31 -0400

Before I begin, I am taking no sides on this issue. Just explaining the difference in terminology, within the confines of the question AS ASKED. "Does 'Anti-abortion' equate 'Pro-Life?'"

No.

Simply because there aren't any "Pro-abortionists." Pro-choice doesn't mean Pro-abortion. Someone can be Pro-Choice, but Anti-Abortion.

This concept, like every other concept is a spectrum, not a dichotomy. Taking the extreme most view, Pro-life "except" when the mother's life is in danger. Pro-life "except" in cases of Rape or Incest.

Pro-Choice just moves those "excepts" further along the spectrum. It changes it from a societal choice of what is acceptable to a personal choice of what is acceptable. That is the difference.

Were we to draw a parallel, it would be to Gun Control. Does 'Gun Control' equal 'Anti-Gun?' or does 'Gun Rights' equal 'Anti-Gun Regulation?'

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Aug 4 at 2015 9:25 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:25:33 -0400

"Anti-Abortion" = "Anti-Choice" + "Women are stupid and need to be told"

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 9:59 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 09:59:24 -0400

I've heard it put once that just because you are against abortion doesn't make you pro-life. Kids who're born with terminal illnesses, crippling diseases or what have ya, that isn't a life. That's simply being alive, typically for a short time. Personally, I'm all for choice. As much as I would love to see every life lived to its fullest, and I believe every life deserves a chance, I support each and every woman's right to say, "I can't have this baby." But to fully answer the initial question, no, anti-abortion does not equal pro-life.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 4 at 2015 10:20 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:20:52 -0400

Smart nun...

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Aug 4 at 2015 10:56 AM

SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:56:22 -0400

However medical procedures to save a mothers life would be performed in a hospital not an abortion clinic. Those who claim that abortions are needed for the victims of rape gloss over the fact that a hospital would administer the morning after pill to the victim. The fact is birth control is readily available to everyone, they practically hand it out in schools these days so I really don't believe there is ever a reasonable excuse for abortion.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 12:20 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:20:39 -0400

I think the question that never gets asked, but needs to be, is at what point does an unborn child become a Constitutionally protected person?
The answer to that would solve the legal aspect of a moral argument.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 4 at 2015 12:35 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:35:35 -0400

Not really. I know a lot of "Pro-Life" people who oppose any and every legislative effort to support said child after birth and compound that by giving as little as possible (if anything at all) to NGOs that work with at-risk and poor families. I'm anti-abortion, but that's rank hypocrisy.

I also find it interesting that the sharpest declines in abortion are under the two most pro-choice presidents in history. Abortion is a complex issue revolving around the uncertain futures and fear of women who are often poor and have frail support structures. Republicans are terrible at addressing those issues, instead opting for bans and bootstraps.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Aug 4 at 2015 12:39 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:39:45 -0400

In an attempt to answer what I think your question is getting at, I would say that some might say in order to be "pro-life" you must be pro life in every instance. What I mean by that is that in abortion you must be pro life (all cases), regarding the death penalty you must be pro-life, toward euthanasia you must be pro life (there could be others but these are the biggies). I don't believe that is true. The difference is the death penalty is morally proscribed and is legally deemed to be acceptable. There is no law on the books regarding abortion. The supreme court created this right out of thin air. It went from being illegal one day to being legal the next.

Also, could the opposite be said to be true? If you are pro choice (the taking of a human life euphemistically called choice) must you be pro choice on abortion, pro death penalty ( the taking of a human life for a crime) and pro euthanasia (the taking of a human life at the end of life)?

Pro choice does equal pro abortion in the way we use the terms. If you are pro choice you are for abortion, there is really no way around the point. Doesn't mean you have to like it but you are for it.

We really need to get back to language that is more accurate than the euphemisms we use today. If we are going to call pro abortion "pro choice" then we should call anti-abortion "pro life".

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 4 at 2015 12:41 PM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:41:17 -0400

CH (MAJ) William Beaver - Captain; Partially. (Which is obvious.)

However, defining "Anti-Abortion" is fairly easy. What I don't find readily available is a definition of "Pro-Life" which doesn't include "is opposed to abortion".

Think of it like the paired questions "Is a horse a zebra?" and "Is a zebra a horse?". The answers are "Sometimes." and "Yes.".

I would feel much more comfortable with the "Pro-Life" crowd if they were all prepared to accept as adoptive children any child whose mother would otherwise have aborted them.

Unfortunately I find that there is a strong streak of "You sinned by getting pregnant so you have to suffer AND the child is the product of sin so the child has to suffer." underlying the position of a very large percentage of the "Pro-Life" people.

I do not doubt the sincerity of their beliefs nor of their fundamentalist interpretation of their "Holy Book's Directions For Life". I don't agree with them, but I don't doubt that they are sincerely eager to thrust the world back into a Tenth Century Theocracy wherein "heretics" could be killed out of hand ("heretic", of course, being defined as "anyone who doesn't believe exactly what I believe") because "God Said So".

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2015 2:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:31:11 -0400

Technically...yes. Anti-abortion means not removing the fetus, which means life for the fetus.

But aside from fighting to keep the baby alive, what are the pro-lifers doing? Are they donating diapers? Clothes? Giving a harried mother a break from her colic-y baby? Are they donating their time to help the women cornered into a situation where they're considering abortion saying "I'm here for you and will help you out, even if it's just being a shoulder to lean on"?

No. I never saw that. Instead, I see many pro-lifers screaming profanities in the faces of frightened women. A woman is a monster because she feels that death is better for her baby than starvation (because she's low-income and can't always afford to feed herself) or because she's a young teenager that didn't know better.

I think that prevention is the key here. Instead of reacting to a situation by abortion, why not educate youngsters on prevention or develop sound outreach programs? Pregnant? Okay, here's the predicted costs, here are some FREE classes on how to adapt to life with a baby. The change is going to suck, but here's a community that UNDERSTANDS and IS HERE TO HELP.

If she still doesn't want the baby, she doesn't want the baby. Maybe she's being selfish, maybe she believes that she won't be able to provide a good growing environment for the baby.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 4 at 2015 2:31 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:31:53 -0400

Another consideration in this issue is this. If a crack-addict gets pregnant, the baby will have a lifetime of medical problems, if the baby even survives. And the mother may not survive the pregnancy. Given the realities of life, I think that in many cases, while it would be best to avoid pregnancy in the first place, abortion may end up being the best of a bad situation...

Response by SSG John Erny made Aug 4 at 2015 5:14 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:14:34 -0400

I have seen and heard of children who survived being aborted in the news, they clearly are not in favour of the practice. I think that a late term abortion is horrible and over all the whole process is sad; On the other hand I do not see why anyone would be against a rape victim being given the morning after pill.
I am not going to judge anyone for doing what they thought they needed to do, it is not my job.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Aug 4 at 2015 5:16 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:16:14 -0400

I'm pro-choice, but anti- abortion. I will say this with sincere respect, I prefer that moralists an religious folks stop pushing their beliefs on others.

Here is a catholic nun's take on pro life:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/30/1407166/-Catholic-Nun-Explains-Pro-Life-In-A-Way-That-May-Stun-The-Masses

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 4 at 2015 5:29 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:29:34 -0400

So many men responding here. Don't you know that you don't have a right to an opinion on abortion? It's a woman's decision. Yes, I'm being somewhat (well more than somewhat) critical. Of course we have a right to an opinion. We're just not allowed to speak it. (Sorry, there I go again) The fact is that abortion is not about "her" body. It's about someone else's body inside "her" body. And, one day we may find that they are babies, not just fetuses. When that day comes, we'll have a debate. Until then, how about this proposition: Abortions are legal BUT those who are morally opposed to abortion shouldn't be forced to pay for them?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2015 6:41 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:41:33 -0400

I find the most... Interesting contradiction in ideology is that, as a male, I will never and can never be forced to provide direct life support to another. I have the bodily autonomy to deny fluid, tissue, and containment to any other life form I choose. If technology arose that allowed me to carry a foetus for any time, and I were the only one nearby who could, no one would question my right to refuse.

And yet, some would see that women don't have that right.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 6 at 2015 2:35 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 02:35:26 -0400

I would say that yes there is a difference.
I am anti-abortion but I am not pro-life. What I mean by that is I don't think abortion should be used as a method of birth control. "Oh, I didn't want to get pregnant so I'll just get an abortion..." not realizing what kind of effects that has on a woman's body.

If on the other hand a drug addict gets pregnant, a woman is raped, cases of incest, the mother or baby will have serious, possibly life threatening, health risks, by all means have an abortion. I actually recently read about a woman who along with her husband decided to abort during her third trimester. The unborn baby had holes in its head and heart, would have been blind and had seizure disorder.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 13 at 2015 5:34 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:34:00 -0400

I struggle with this personally.

On one hand, life is precious, anyone who has held their newborn son or daughter in their arms for the first time, and then watched them flourish into adulthood will understand, those who have not... well there's no comparable experience.

On the other hand, I had a distant in-law that performed abortions in the 1950's. I see the news of a family that beat a pregnant girl until she miscarried, I see mothers that have multiple children from different fathers because each one represents another welfare check to feed their drug habit, I see children abused mentally, physically, and sexually by the people who are supposed to be loving and protecting them.

Part of me says, "People should have to have a permit to have a child, it requires more responsibility than driving a car or owning a gun." but then my mind screams at me "You're crazy! There's no way to legislate morality!"

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Aug 24 at 2022 12:13 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Wed, 24 Aug 2022 12:13:49 -0400

I think that a women should have a choice regarding abortions. The Government should not regulate this.