Tags
jail, bible, Religion, Christianity, war, jesus, pro life, anti war, anti abortion, abortion, contraceptives, feminist, feminism, anthropocentrism, anthropocentric, health risk, rape, baby, father, responsibility, legal, legally, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancies, vote, adopt, adoption, abortions, morally, death penalty, pro-lifer, america, american, penal system, prison system, white supremacist group, white supremacy, anti-gay, radical islam, war on terror, capitalism, john, abundant life, Politics, political, torture, greedy corporations
Lately, I’ve been mulling over what it means to be pro-life.
Jesus said:
“I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” John 10:10
I define pro-life as valuing life above all else. Being pro-life means seeking abundant life for all.
While people usually associate being pro-life with the issue of abortion, I believe that it has a much greater scope. However, I will begin with the issue of abortion.
Perhaps my feminist friends (I consider myself a feminist) will scorn me for my position, but I cannot morally reconcile abortion, especially late-term or partial-birth abortion. As for abortions that would happen early in the pregnancy, I’m a little hazy on that. I don’t really have a problem with contraceptives or the morning after pill. Maybe this is nothing more than my anthropocentrism, but when the being begins to form appendages resembling my own arms, legs and head… it becomes difficult for me to justify its termination.
I also understand that there are more factors to consider than simply the status of the baby. The mother’s predicament must also be taken into account. Health risks and rape have serious repercussions for the mother and are wholy out of her control. I also understand the significant stigmas related to sexual assault and single motherhood. It is unfair in cases such as these for society to necessitate that the mother must care for the child. Doing so places zero responsibility on the father of the child, who should be required to accept half of the responsibility. I understand the legal difficulties of verifying the father’s identity. But, if society makes it difficult to ascertain the identity of the father, then that society must accept at least the father’s responsibility for the child.
If we, as a society, decide that abortion is wrong and should therefore be illegal with a few extenuating exceptions (which I believe we should), then by necessity we must assume full responsibility for children of unwanted pregnancies. Whether that be through financial support of state/social programs to provide daycare, tutoring, nutrition, transportation, education, welfare, and all other needs, or through actually adopting children from unwanted pregnancies, our society must be willing to care for our children.
If you vote pro-life but are unwilling to adopt or support institutions to do likewise, you are as morally reprehensible as those who carry out abortions.
Furthermore, being “pro-life” has greater implications than simply determining one’s opinion on abortion.
By its very definition, pro-life values life. Therefore, a pro-lifer seeks to dismantle any system which degrades, devalues or destroys life. Such systems include the American penal system, white supremacist groups, anti-gay movements, radical Islam, the war on terror, torture, and greedy corporations. To support such systems is to support death; they must be dismantled or subverted.
If you support the death penalty, then you’re not actually pro-life. If you support war, you’re not pro-life.
These are agents of death. Jesus came that we may have abundant life. This is our mission to carry out.
“I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.”
As you point out, “pro-life” is often used hypocritically. I’d go even further than you have (in wondering how such people could be in favor of war and capital punishment), by pointing out sport-hunting as a hypocritical action, too. How can one be pro-life and then kill innocent creatures for fun?
“Pro-life” means only one thing in America today. That’s why I like to refer to the so-called “pro-lifers” as being pro-forced-maternity.
Ex:
Good point. Especially about the sport hunting. That must have been my anthropocentrism rearing it’s ugly head when I forgot to mention sport hunting.
Pro-forced-maternity does seem to be a more accurate label for the movement.
Pingback: A further thought on being “Pro-life” « Amanti
Interesting article.
I would like to thank for you sharing your opinion.
You said:
“I also understand that there are more factors to consider than simply the status of the baby. The mother’s predicament must also be taken into account. Health risks and rape have serious repercussions for the mother and are wholy out of her control. I also understand the significant stigmas related to sexual assault and single motherhood. It is unfair in cases such as these for society to necessitate that the mother must care for the child. Doing so places zero responsibility on the father of the child, who should be required to accept half of the responsibility. I understand the legal difficulties of verifying the father’s identity. But, if society makes it difficult to ascertain the identity of the father, then that society must accept at least the father’s responsibility for the child.”
Though I do agree 100% with these words, there does happen to be some flaw.
On the article I shared on my post on abortion, it stated statistics that said some major cities of the US, such as Chicago Buffalo and Philedelphia, have never allowed an abortion because the pregnancy dangered the mother in an average of 17 years.
I do still beleive that the baby should be given the right to live even if the mother is unable. There are many choices in what you can do with the baby.
If we allow abortion… what is stopping us from killing whomever we want just cuz we don’t wanna take care of them?
Some of the world’s greatest leaders were born into poverty… what if they had been aborted?
Love for others is the second greatest command in the Bible (Matt. 22:37-39). The Bible tells us how we should act toward those we love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). This teaching definitely does not allow us to kill others (Rom. 13:8-10).
Abortion is wrong any direction it is taken.
Garrett,
Thanks for your comment. The article you cite claims that in four major U.S. cities there wasn’t a single abortion as a result of rape. I would be skeptical of this claim. Besides the fact that it sounds unimaginably improbable, it only references statistics from four cities without giving context to any other studies or defining national trends on this issue. Furthermore, there is an undue amount of difficulty in legally proving rape. Due to social stigma, rapes are grossly under-reported. Even if reported, gathering enough evidence to identify and convict someone is even more problematic. I find the argument cited by the article to be far-fetched, inconclusive and problematic.
Please understand that I’m not arguing that abortion is a good thing. I would love for every abortion clinic in the world to shut down from a lack of business. But I believe we need to treat abortion as a symptom of a disease in our society, not a disease itself. I believe the best way to eliminate abortion is not to outlaw it, but to attack its root causes: poverty and sexism (there may be others).
I like the last point you mentioned. “This teaching definitely does not allow us to kill others.” I whole-heartedly agree. This is why I get so confused by people who call themselves “pro-life” but are in favor of war, the death penalty and sport-hunting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that. How does being “pro-life” extend beyond the issue of abortion.
I truely think Pro-Life is exactly how you put it. Life for everyone, peace.
With the rape factor, it is a very real situation, but most rapes reported are girls trying to get out of the punishment, and even more, felt sorry for. It’s a sad fact, but it is true the majority of the time.
Even if the rape accually occured, I do still believe that abortion is not the correct way to turn. Scripture tells us babys are a gift from God, not a burden. There are many paths to take when deciding what you can do with your child if you are not able to take care of it. Many.
“If you would not want someone to kill you, then you should not kill an unborn baby (Matthew 7:12). Indeed, Jesus considers the treatment we give children to be the very treatment we give Him (Matthew 18:5). Our eternal destiny depends on how we treat others (Matt. 25:34-46). Since the unborn baby is a “child,” we must treat it in harmony with these passages.”
Above paragraph taken from: http://gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
Garrett,
I’d have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the majority of the time, reported rapes are girls trying to get out of punishment or get sympathy. I can only speak from my own experience, but of the five women I know who have reported being raped, all five of them actually were. I’m not saying that women never false report, but in my experience such cases are a severe minority.
I don’t think abortion is a good idea at all. But if I’m going to tell a women that she has to deliver her child, I believe I need to share in the responsibility of raising that child. That means someday I will adopt a few kids of my own. It also means that I need to be willing to lend a hand to the single mothers around me. Finally, it means I need to be willing to pay child support and help with hospital fees (whether this happens personally or via taxes).
Basically, if we decide that abortion should be illegal, then we need to take responsibility for the children whose mothers are unable to.
Do you agree?
Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted.
–Mother Teresa
http://www.priestsforlife.org/audios/mother-teresa-speech.m3u
Pingback: Two years of Amanti « Amanti
Pingback: Why Life Always Is neither Pro-Life nor Effective « Amanti