Is "Pro-life" the wrong name to give to that movement?

Posted by: Charliecdubs

A lot of people who are "pro-choice" say "pro-life" people are not really pro-life and a lot of "pro-life" people say the opposite so what do you think? Is it really the "Pro-life" movement?

  • Yes they are pro-life

  • No it's really the wrong name for them

33% 11 votes
67% 22 votes
  • a better word for them is "hypocritical morons"

  • Hmm ... One could argue that by being "for" the unborn child's life they're "Pro-life". But in most cases, when an abortion would be involved, the parents are doing it because it would ruin their life or the child's life as they are not prepared for the child. So in that sense being "Pro-life" would mean you would be against the parents' lives as well as the potential child's livelihood.

    Posted by: Owlz
  • Idiots

  • "Pro-life" can also imply favoring the life we know definitely exists. "Pro-choice" can also imply tolerating conscious people to behave as they choose. Therefore, "pro-life" can imply tolerating abortion while "pro-choice" can imply opposing abortion. Instead, abortion should be between "pro-potential" and "pro-actualization" positions where we recognize that conscious people can potentially behave as they will versus expecting conscious people to actualize themselves in certain ways.

  • Should it be called the forced birthing group?

  • Most of these people support the death penalty, More wars, No healthcare, etc etc So... its the wrong name to give to them

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Geogeer says2014-04-25T10:14:22.5757131-05:00
Doesn't seem that any of the Cons care to support their assertion.
Owlz says2014-04-25T11:04:08.1505131-05:00
Was my evaluation enough to support everyone's assertion? :P
discomfiting says2014-04-25T11:05:29.0790181-05:00
They dont support life because there many prolifers that support wars, death penalty, and violence and even some (not most) bomb, murder and assault people simply because they disagree.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:05:29.9838355-05:00
@ Owlz - So your assertion is that if it makes your life easier you are justified in killing another human being?
SNP1 says2014-04-25T11:07:55.3645131-05:00
Geogeer, you are good at making loaded questions, aren't you? What if the livelihood of the child would be horrible if the child is born? Also, pro-lifers take away the rights of the woman. Taking away rights is to dictate a person's life. To dictate a person's life is to take their life from them and put it into your own hands.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:08:06.6099601-05:00
@ discomfiting - Your assertion is that all wars are unjust and thus anyone who defends any war is inherently anti-life?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:11:43.8421131-05:00
@SBP1 - So if you do not have an arbitrarily set minimum standard of life you have forfeited your right to life? I can go an kill a bum because he will never again have a quality life? I can justify carpet bombing the miserable people living in refugee camps or dying from drought ravaged areas? As you said, "To dictate a person's life is to take their life from them and put it into your own hands" - is that not exactly what the mother is doing to the child, dictating whether it has the right to continue living?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:12:27.1321131-05:00
Apologies @SNP1...
discomfiting says2014-04-25T11:14:23.1159601-05:00
Not when they're wars of aggression in countries that we bombed then retaliated then exploited for oil and killing thousands of LIVING innocent civilians
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:25:00.2065131-05:00
@discomfiting - That avoids the question. Whether some wars are just or not is a different issue. You agree that someone can be Pro-Life and still in favour of a just war. Additionally you imply that the unborn are not living? Yet that is patently false. A zygote is a living human being.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T11:30:22.7838377-05:00
"is that not exactly what the mother is doing to the child, dictating whether it has the right to continue living?" No, she is dictating HER life. There are 2 ways of viewing the fetus. ONE, it is part of the woman's body, therefore she has the right to remove it. TWO, it is not part of the woman's body, so it is invading her body. She has the right to remove it. If it dies as a result of being removed it does not directly infringe upon the "life" of the fetus. The fetus being considered a living human is debated on to this day. ONE, if the fetus is not a human it does not have human rights, it is allowed to be removed. TWO, if the fetus is a human it has to follow the same laws as humans do, and it being in a woman that does not want it there goes against her rights and is a violating of her legal rights, she therefore has the rights to remove it. If it is considered a person and dies as a result of being removed there is no one at fault for the death as it infringed upon her rights and she was exercising her rights to remove it. If you say that she is to blame you can also make the same case that a mother is to blame when she has twins that are joined at the head (or similar areas) and to separate them would kill one of them (and this is not considered illegal).
discomfiting says2014-04-25T11:46:19.1751920-05:00
Zygotes are alive but no more alive than a cow or a pig that you eat. This isn't a matter of being scientifically defined as life. What is life in a philosophical meaning? A person who is brain dead gets the plug pulled; they're alive with life. The food you eat; the burgers and steak were all living things that you kill. Everything; trees, plants, cows, pigs, fish and everything is alive but we still kill it. It has nothing to do with "being alive" and no it's not a human being. They're not the same as us because they're not developed yet; after the first trimester they're more human and have most of the brain functions and crap. I can't oppose abortion because there is no other alternative for unfit parents or parents who cannot raise a kid. Adoption is not the answer and if you ever lived through the adoption system like I did, you'd understand. "in case of rape and incest" is the best of pro-life stance because your opinions are that the fetus is a person and then you say 'well damn, how do i force a woman to carry a child when she was raped or from incest?' and y'all feel guilty and disgusting. But the fetus is not less of a human from what the pro-life pov. It's nothing but wanting to condemn people; it has nothing to do with life and personhood rights.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T11:57:38.8563305-05:00
@ SNP1 - So you have the right to murder? You are arguing that you have an unlimited license to enforce your rights. Additionally how do you reconcile your argument with the fact that the parents are forced to provide for the needs of their children? If you are free to enforce your rights before birth you should be free to enforce your rights after birth. Additionally what is this right based upon?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T12:09:49.9518830-05:00
@ discomfiting - I'm glad that we agree it is alive. Now unlike cows, pigs, plants etc... It is a human being. A person who is brain dead is having their bodily functions artificially supported in a manner not in keeping with its nature. An unborn child is following the path that nature has laid out for it. Nature has provided the mother's womb precisely for this function. So you justify the slaughter of an innocent human being by noting that a 3rd party did you wrong. There are very few studies on women who were raped. They actually note that the women who carried the pregnancy through recovered psychologically better than those who aborted. What raped women want is support and compassion, not people who just want to pretend that it never happened and want to dispose of the problem.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T12:16:54.9894830-05:00
"So you have the right to murder?" I did not say that, you are also misrepresenting what I said to attempt to enforce your own outdated views. "You are arguing that you have an unlimited license to enforce your rights." I am arguing that any way you look at abortion the woman legally has the right to choose. "Additionally how do you reconcile your argument with the fact that the parents are forced to provide for the needs of their children?" There are laws in place stating that if you are a legal guardian there are certain things you must do, but a fetus is NOT a baby. These laws do not apply during the fetal stage. "If you are free to enforce your rights before birth you should be free to enforce your rights after birth." You can, but what rights would you be enforcing after birth by not taking care of your kid? A mother does not legally have to breast feed their baby, they can choose formula. You obviously have no grasp on legal knowledge. "Additionally what is this right based upon?" Which rights that I mentioned are you referring to?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T12:22:33.5250830-05:00
@ SNP1 - Ah a resort to legalism, just because it is law it just. So you'd agree that slavery was just pre civil war? You'd agree it was just for the Nazi's to round up the Jews? Those were legal too. The parents have to provide for the needs of their children. So yes a woman can substitute formula. What if she gave birth trapped in a snow covered cabin with no formula. Would she be justified in letting her child starve to death, because she wanted to use formula instead? You said the woman has the right to remove the child from her body. What is that right and what is it based upon?
SNP1 says2014-04-25T12:36:50.4158477-05:00
"Ah a resort to legalism, just because it is law it just." Considering how abortion is currently a legal issue, I took the legal approach to it. Do you want me to take the moral approach instead? "So you'd agree that slavery was just pre civil war?" Red Herring,BTW, no I would not agree to that. "You'd agree it was just for the Nazi's to round up the Jews? Those were legal too." Red herring AND Reductio ad Hitlerum! Two logical fallacies here. "The parents have to provide for the needs of their children." For their children, yes. A fetus is not yet a child. "So yes a woman can substitute formula. What if she gave birth trapped in a snow covered cabin with no formula." She still does not HAVE to breast feed, though will be looked down upon by people if she does. Her body, her choice. Or are you saying that a woman does not have a choice about their own body? "Would she be justified in letting her child starve to death, because she wanted to use formula instead? You said the woman has the right to remove the child from her body. What is that right and what is it based upon?" The child is invading her body. It is the same rights that make rape illegal, that make sexual harassment illegal, that makes it illegal for someone to put a substance in her body without her permission. If someone does not want something in their body or to use their body they have the right to refuse and/or remove that thing to the best of the ability there is access to, this includes aborting a fetus.
Cat_Lover says2014-04-25T12:37:58.4630477-05:00
I don't think abortion is a good thing.
Cat_Lover says2014-04-25T12:38:33.2370830-05:00
Unless it would threaten the survival of the mother.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T12:57:37.6998830-05:00
@ SNP1 - We also agree that law does not make abortion inherently right. Is a fetus a human being under the age of majority? Yes. It is thus a child of the species. I would argue that the mother would be guilty of murder. The primary purpose of the breast is to provide nourishment to the newborn child. As the mother is the legal guardian of the child and is currently lactating, she is obligated to reasonably provide for the child. Intentionally denying the child what nature has provided for it without an equivalent substitute is a dereliction of their duty. You have not established why that right exists. What is it based on? Unlike all of your previous examples the child is not invading her body, it is the desired product of her body.
MasturDbtor says2014-04-25T13:00:17.5036413-05:00
I would rather be alive but in foster care or raised by negligent parents than not at all.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T13:12:37.9626121-05:00
"Unlike all of your previous examples the child is not invading her body, it is the desired product of her body." It is invading her body as much as rape is. Sexual intercourse is the desired action of the female body, but rape is also wrong. It does not matter what the bodies desire is, what matters is the woman's personal desire. "You have not established why that right exists." If you want to get technical about it, no one has any rights, not even the right to live. That means the fetus does not have that right either. If you want to get practical about it, rights come from individuality, society, and government. Individuality gives people rights over their individual self, which includes the right of choice (making rape wrong while sexual intercourse is alright). Societal rights give you rights within a society like the rights of personal property (an individual owning their own clothes, having access to food, etc.). Government rights give you rights within a government system (like the right to face your accuser, the right to marry, etc.). If you want to talk about where this specific right comes from it comes from the right of individuality, a right that exists independent of society and government. To take people's individual rights away is either slavery or something similar.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T13:56:31.9110830-05:00
@SNP1 - The child is the product of her body not an invader. This is exactly where nature has dictated child should be at this stage of life. Yes sexual intercourse is a natural good, does that mean that all sexual intercourse is justifiable? Food is a natural good as well, however that does not mean that every form of eating is justified. Ah, the retreat into moral obscurity. Because you don't like the morality it obviously doesn't exist. If that is true you are living a lie. If rape and murder are merely individual preference you cannot actually condemn anyone whose opinion differs. I'll give you a clue as to what the rights you claim are based on - Natural Law. Your founding fathers made an appeal to them as described at the beginning of the declaration of independence. I agree fully that taking away somebody's rights is akin to slavery. The most fundamental of all rights is the right to life. By giving the mother full power of life and death over the unborn you have reduced them to a slave who can be murdered without any justification whatsoever.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T14:07:36.5279045-05:00
There exist absolutely no morals in natural law. Morals are objective. We do have ethics though, which is why we can push our morals. As a societal species we rely on ethics more than any individual's morality. There are no moral absolutes, as a result there are no absolute rights. That does not make morals, ethics, or rights any less than they naturally are. You also do not understand how individual rights work if you are trying to say that a fetus is a slave if abortion exists
Geogeer says2014-04-25T14:21:49.0386276-05:00
@SNP1 - ah now it is Argumentum ad Populum. Since the majority of people want something it is now justified. Ethics are based on moral principles. Without those principles being immutable ethics are just a matter of group think and thus of no real value. Human sacrifices were considered fully ethical at one time. A slave is a slave because you possess his or her right to life. If they do not do as you request you have the right to kill them. Slavery is a condition where your fundamental rights are not protected. Thus abortion is just a form of slavery. Your assertion that there are no fundamental rights means that you have justified putting yourself into slavery.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T14:49:42.9222830-05:00
" ah now it is Argumentum ad Populum. Since the majority of people want something it is now justified. Ethics are based on moral principles." Ethics are commonly agreed upon morals, so ethics are complete Argumentum ad Populum. There are no absolute rights or morals, but when dealing with a society you must find what ethics and rights make a more efficient system. That is how it works, and individual rights as I have stated are a progressive idea of rights. That does not make it absolute, but that does not make them wrong for an advancement of society. Slavery was once alright in society, but society EVOLVED and it is no longer alright.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T14:55:55.4346830-05:00
"There are no absolute rights or morals" No absolute rights or absolute morals
Geogeer says2014-04-25T15:04:16.8966830-05:00
""There are no absolute rights or morals" No absolute rights or absolute morals" - SNP1........... “If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.” - B. Mussolini
SNP1 says2014-04-25T15:05:43.0729825-05:00
Do you realize how flawed that is if that is your argument?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T15:09:30.9267969-05:00
@SNP1 - You're the one who stated there are no real morals or rights. If that is the case Mussolini was quite correct that every person is fully justified in forcing their ideologies, to the extent they are able, on everyone else.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T15:16:59.2062830-05:00
Just because there are no ABSOLUTE morals or rights does NOT mean there are no morals. The fact that morals exist mean that ETHICS exist. The fact that ethics exist WITHIN a society means there is a standard of actions. Since there exist both societies and ethics we have an idea of what an individual's rights are. Society and ethics EVOLVE through time, which means rights also evolve through time. This means that an individual's opinion does NOT effect the society they live in, the MAJORITY'S does, meaning Mussolini was wrong.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T15:29:09.2903200-05:00
If there are no absolute "morals or rights" then they are merely a form of social conditioning. Your argument agrees with him. You view it as an evolution, but if there is no absolute then there is nothing to compare your morality versus someone else's. Thus you are agreeing with Mussolini because he thought that his morals were an evolution of morals as well. You are just engaging in confirmation bias by stating that the morals you subscribe to are an evolution over someone else's. Thus you believe that you are justified in forcing conformance to the current moral situation through legal enforcement. It is simply a case of the powerful imposing their will on the weak, just as Mussolini did.
demonlord343 says2014-04-25T15:41:12.5184738-05:00
@Geogeer, so you are saying that your morals are right as well? You are clearly trying to set the ethical standard or moral standard. I didn't realize that all the children of the world were yours, and you decided that they all must live. A) A fetus is actually by definition not alive. B) You seem to be pro-life. In the situation of rape, you are saying that you'd still have the child live? How bout if the dad left and it would kill the mom? I view that as highly immoral. The kid's life would not be full of fun. It would be of misery and suffering. C) There is a reason why RIGHTS are to be kept separate from morals. The Supreme Court ruled for abortion according to the trimester. Why? By the time the baby starts to mature, and actually begin to develop into a living being, it is in the second trimester when small functions of life begin to develop, however, not all of them.
SNP1 says2014-04-25T15:41:58.3350830-05:00
Geogeer, listen VERY carefully. Morals do not determine how a society should act, ETHICS do. Morals help form ethics, but morals are not ethics. Ethics is NOT about who has the better morals, it is about what morals are most commonly shared. Ethics change over time based on what is most beneficial to society. Stealing hinder society, hence the ethic that stealing is wrong evolved. Now, as long as ethics and society exist there will exist rights. What those rights are are dependent upon what ethics exist within the society and the structure of the society. I am not saying that my morals are an evolution as morals mean nothing in the grand scale of things, ethics do. I am telling you what my moral view is on this, you are telling me what your moral view is, but the ethical view is currently in debate in the United States. So, since the ethical view is in debate everyone can attempt to argue their side's view. I do not believe in forcing morals onto others, I believe in the structural system of ethics within society. Mussolini believed that if one person was able to that he/she had the right to force their morals onto others.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T15:44:04.5730796-05:00
@SNP1 - You realize that you are now beginning to defend Natural Law don't you?
Geogeer says2014-04-25T16:03:16.4586830-05:00
To clarify for you, you are arguing that laws against stealing provide better results for society. That is because it recognizes the objective wrong for humans to steal. It provides better results because it is in conformance with Natural Law. Thus we are not creating our own ethics and morality, but merely conforming ourselves to that which is objectively true.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T16:13:47.4162830-05:00
@DL343 - I'll get back to you later!
SNP1 says2014-04-25T18:04:49.6614830-05:00
"objective wrong" Is it objective? In certain societies there could be a benefit. In a world with no societies there is no problem with it as you look after yourself. It is subjective based on the society, and the society that we happen to live in is one where stealing is harmful to the society. It is not what is "objectively true" as it is only true within the structure of society you live in. How you have been arguing your points shows a close mindedness on your end.
Geogeer says2014-04-25T18:17:41.1594830-05:00
@SNP1 - You are now contradicting yourself to save your argument. You have previously argued that morality evolves. If it evolves it is superior to what was there before. Otherwise it is just change. If it is just change then change in itself is not evolution and you have gone back to Mussolini who brought about change. Additionally, if it is not objectively true then you should be able to easily show that societies which permit theft provide the same degree of long term social stability and advancement as those that do not.
Geogeer says2014-04-26T08:10:56.0206561-05:00
@DL343 - Yes I am saying that my morals are objectively true. I'm not hiding behind any kind of relativism to justify my stance. A fetus meets every definition of life. It is a unique organism, that metabolizes, grows to an adult of the species, etc... Yes even in cases of rape abortion should not be allowed. You are not allowed to murder an innocent third party. Heck you're not even allowed to murder the guilty second party. There have only been one or two actual studies on women who became pregnant as a result of rape. Yo know what? It wasn't an abortion that they desired. They wanted love and support from their families. They wanted to know that they did not deserve this and that their loved ones would be there for them. On the other hand, others who knew the woman just wanted to pretend that the rape never happened. They wanted to dispose of "the problem" so that they could just carry on with their lives. They were the ones who generally pushed for the abortion because true love didn't fit with their own plans. Abortion is not the solution to situations where the mother's life is at risk because an abortion is always murder. You cannot intentionally kill someone. Now if while saving the mother's life the child happens to die, without that being the intention, then that is morally permissible. While everybody agrees that a child's life should be fun, does not mean that those who have a less than ideal childhood should have their gift of life unjustly removed from them. The US Supreme Court dodged the true question, when does life begin. That is the only way that they could authorize abortion. If you don't know you should have to err on the side of caution. If I go hunting I'm legally required to to make visual confirmation that what I'm shooting at is not a human. If I simply shoot at rustling in the bush without confirming I can be held guilty.
dmussi12 says2014-04-26T08:25:20.9170581-05:00
@Geogeer Your crucial misunderstanding is that the fetus is not universally considered innocent. It has attached itself to a body, and is a constant drain on the mother's resources for 9 months. It has invaded her privacy, changed her personality and appearance, and also expects care for 18 more years, along with contact afterwards. It endangers a person's life in some cases, and causes extraordinary pain at a point. Although I would contend, like others, that fetuses are not alive as humans, the misconception that they are innocent needs to be dispelled.
Geogeer says2014-04-26T08:56:06.1400690-05:00
@dmussi12 - They are innocent as they have been actively placed where they are. As the natural primary purpose of every organism is to reproduce, the mother's body actively desires and is oriented to this end. Unlike other parts of the mother's body, her reproductive system is designed not for her, but for her child. A child is a natural good to the mother in that it fulfills her fundamental biological imperative. Thus nice the mother's body intentionally aided in the creation of the child and it's subsequent implantation, the child is not "guilty" of being there, but is rather there under the direct and active desire of the mother's body.
SNP1 says2014-04-26T16:38:27.4593620-05:00
I have not changed my stance. It evolves from the view of what the current societal structure is, in reality it is just changing. You also have no understanding about how morality of an individual means jack s*** to a society and that it is the ethics of society that matter. At this rate I believe you are simply trying to keep your head in the sand and stick to your beliefs, even if it means twisting what other people say in order to make your view look more appealing. Either that or you have such a horrible comprehension level that you cannot understand simple ideas that are not in line with your own.
Formerland1 says2014-06-10T21:50:05.2462337-05:00
What they should be called is pro suffering and pain
BrightEyes21 says2015-02-24T15:15:56.2914230-06:00
Im very confused with this question...?? :/ :/ :/( It says i voted yes but i didnt i thought i had to vote just to comment on it...)

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.