"Pro-life" or really just "Pro Birth"

[Jessicaane]

As many of you know, today is the annual "Pro-life" March. But what are you really marching for? There seems to be so much hypocrisy when it comes to this topic; are you actually really "pro-life" or are you actually just "pro-birth"? This quote from Sister Joan Chittister is one to really listen to..

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

It's a very true statement, I believe. People want to fight for the "rights" of an unborn child and believe that every child deserves to be born and a chance at life, and to choose adoption. However, that's all... When the same unborn child that you were fighting for rights for is born and ends up gay, will you still love that person and continue to fight for their rights..? I have always been against abortion, and growing up I've always knew that regardless of how many children I have, I WILL adopt one as well. After all, how can you be pro-life and support people putting their unborn baby up for a adoption but not be willing to adopt??

I know plenty of people who are pro-life, Catholic/Christian, and when I ask them weather they would adopt, every person and so called "Christian" comes up with some lame excuse. "I would but...(enter lame excuses here)" These same people are the ones who bash people on welfare, put down people working at McDonalds, don't want their tax money to go to healthcare, welfare etc.. All these "lives" that people are fighting for will most likely end up in foster care, adoption agencies, low income families, poverty, uneducated, drugs, crimes..etc... These so called "pro-life" supporters don't actually care what happens to these children after they are born. Some of these same people support the death penalty, they support war. Some of these exact people are in our Military killing people. How can you be "pro-life", a follower of Jesus, and support the killing of people but be "pro-life" for babies? Because being "pro-life" is believing in ALL life for their entire life.

 

I really wish that people would take the time to really understand what it means to be "pro-life" v "pro-birth".. I wish that people would fight just as hard to lower adoption fees to adopt, to fight for better education on sex and procreation. To fight just as hard for these babies to actually have a real chance at life! Not just to be born... 

So is there a difference in "pro-life'' v "pro-birth"? Can you be "pro-life" but believe in abortions in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother? Can you be "pro-life" but support the death penalty and war?  

 

Please let me know how you feel on this subject, I really would like to understand how others view this topic.

 

Thanks and God Bless

[Nihil Obstat]

Just now, Jessicaane said:

This quote from Sister Joan Chittister is one to really listen to..

 

Lol k.  

[Guest]

Is that you in the profile pic?

[dUSt]

24 minutes ago, Jessicaane said:

Can you be "pro-life" but believe in abortions in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother? Can you be "pro-life" but support the death penalty and war?  

I agreed with everything you said until you got here. I'll answer your questions.

No. Yes, and yes.

"Pro-life" means you value life equally for all people, born and unborn, young and old, black and white, American and non-American, etc.

So, abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong.

Abortion in the case of health of the mother? Debatable. If it is life or death, then you are basically choosing who lives and who dies. I'd say it would be extremely rare to have to end the life of the child in order to allow the mother to live.

Death penalty? Probably not in America, but possibly in other countries where it is the only way to protect society.

War? Of course. Just war is often necessary. Ask the Jewish people in Germany. Unjust war, no. 

 

29 minutes ago, Josh said:

Is that you in the profile pic?

Don't be a creeper.

[Peace]

46 minutes ago, Josh said:

Is that you in the profile pic?

That is really me in my photo, in case you were wondering.

[Nihil Obstat]

Likewise. 

[Jessicaane]

13 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I agreed with everything you said until you got here. I'll answer your questions.

No. Yes, and yes.

"Pro-life" means you value life equally for all people, born and unborn, young and old, black and white, American and non-American, etc.

So, abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong.

Abortion in the case of health of the mother? Debatable. If it is life or death, then you are basically choosing who lives and who dies. I'd say it would be extremely rare to have to end the life of the child in order to allow the mother to live.

Death penalty? Probably not in America, but possibly in other countries where it is the only way to protect society.

War? Of course. Just war is often necessary. Ask the Jewish people in Germany. Unjust war, no. 

 

Don't be a creeper.

Yes, I agree. That's where there becomes so much confusion I suppose on the topic of what really is pro-life. My boyfriend is in the Army, very active in the catholic church, and is pro-life as myself. I fully support him and all our active military who protect us and keep us safe. Yet people always ask/say to him, how can you be pro-life yet be willing to go to other countries and bomb/kill innocent lives & children. Like you said, war is necessary to protect us and keep us safe but some people don't see it like that.

As for the health of the mother, in the rare cases a woman has a ectopic pregnancy (fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus) it usually requires the pregnancy to be ended since it would kill the mother since she cannot carry a child outside the uterus and the child would most likely not survive either. So in that case I would agree that it would be okay, since the child would not be able to survive regardless, and carrying to term would kill the mother.

Although I believe I'm pro-life, and will always fight for life and not just the birth of a child, there are certain circumstances (above) that I believe, which people argue saying its not "pro-life"

[Luigi]

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Sister Joan Chittister wouldn't know this, probably never having worked for a living, but...

Every day, when every one of us go to work, we pay taxes to the federal, state, and local governments. Those who own houses also pay taxes annually on their property. Those taxes are used to feed, house, clothe, educate, provide medical care for, and transport people who can't afford to do it themselves. I do support the birth of the child, and I support - with actual taxes that I'd prefer to keep in my own pocket - the federal, state, and local programs that provide pre-natal care for the mother, well-baby check-ups, food, clothing, housing, and education to the child, up to and including a college education. It is entirely possible in American society, for the government to provide ALL necessary services to a mother before her baby is born, and for both the mother and her children until the children are adults.

The vast majority of us - including probably every Phatmasser - also donate food at Thanksgiving, presents for the Advent Giving Tree, baby clothes and money to Birthright, school supplies for needy children every August, money to the Vincent de Paul society, clothing drives, re-sell-it shops, scholarships to Catholic schools, and any number of other charitable organizations and events.

When I die and meet my Maker, I'm going to have all of my charitable contributions typed up and in my left hip pocket (on the off chance that God operates like the federal government). I will be able to document my support of needy children. Sister Joan Chittister will tell the Maker, "I didn't actually donate anything, but I told other people they weren't giving enough." Talk about binding up heavy burdens for others....

I'm sick to death of this you-support-birth-but-not-life argument. Pardon me while I puke!

[Anomaly]

I agree pro-life is more than pro-birth.  It also includes making people responsible for their actions, including fathers.  It includes not enabling irresponsible parenting, making it easy and ok for single parents to get $ help because they want a child more than they want a family.    It includes making no distinction between adopted children and birth children when it comes to family. It means ending parental rights and contact of parents that aren't fit, capable, or willing to be the head of a family    It means that being a DNA donor does not make you magically a real parent or real family, it's the effort and love you put into parenting.  

There are lots of opinions and prioritization of what pro-life is.  Enough good opinions that it's worth discussing and arguing about. 

[beatitude]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

Every day, when every one of us go to work, we pay taxes to the federal, state, and local governments. Those who own houses also pay taxes annually on their property. Those taxes are used to feed, house, clothe, educate, provide medical care for, and transport people who can't afford to do it themselves. I do support the birth of the child, and I support - with actual taxes that I'd prefer to keep in my own pocket - the federal, state, and local programs that provide pre-natal care for the mother, well-baby check-ups, food, clothing, housing, and education to the child, up to and including a college education. It is entirely possible in American society, for the government to provide ALL necessary services to a mother before her baby is born, and for both the mother and her children until the children are adults.

It's theoretically possible for the government to provide all necessary services, but it doesn't happen. If it did there would be no need for charities. You don't have to look far to discover people who struggle to access the support they need, who receive painfully inadequate services, and who are frightened of what more cuts to different government programs would mean for them. People who need help from charities are in an especially precarious situation, as a charity's income can fluctuate significantly from year to year with the charity having no way to guarantee how many people they can help. I'm no fan of Sr Joan Chittister's dodgy theology, but responding to her points with snarky comments about "never having worked for a living" is unlikely to convince people who live in adverse circumstances that you sincerely care about their situation, especially as they may work very hard and still be poor, or be medically unable to work and still have an all too vivid understanding of how poverty works. Suggesting that everyone is already able to get what they need certainly won't reassure them that you know what their life is like.

If Sr Joan's theology wasn't heterodox and she lived in a more traditional monastery, I doubt you'd say that she'd never "given anything." We've all given something; none of us have given as much as we should. However, it's natural to feel indignant and upset if we're getting this barrage of criticism about not caring for others when we do try. I felt the same way towards a friend last week - I didn't agree with her on something, so she sarcastically accused me of lacking empathy and being unable to listen, when I've actually worked very hard on listening and trying to understand the situation she was describing. I didn't think I'd fallen short in that area either. So I was hurt that all my effort had gone unnoticed, and she had spoken to me in such a way. I also felt that she had been a bit hypocritical. It took me several days (and the help of St Isaac the Syrian, who had a lot to say about humility) for me to realise that while I might be trying, and while I might have some empathy and readiness to listen, by the standards of Christ I definitely don't have enough of either and it's not for me to get proud of what I do have. Taking pride in our efforts and wanting other people to recognise them could be read as another way of storing up treasure on earth, instead of heaven. My friend could have phrased herself in a kinder way, but her challenge is valuable. Jesus did great things with the five loaves and two fishes, a small amount of food, but it wasn't small for the boy who gave it; that was his entire lunch. The same with the widow and her two coins. Sometimes I wonder if she ever felt dread and a wild regret as they disappeared into the temple box. I felt as if I had handed my friend one coin and all my loaves but one, and she'd snapped at me for withholding the other, but my irritation still wasn't justified according to the gospels - we're called to hand over the entire lunch. Part of that means recognising that we could always be more generous, and part of it means responding with kindness to people who criticise us when we're already trying, even if they're unfair. That's a harder form of giving than material giving, but it's as important; and as Catholic faith and ethics are an interwoven tapestry rather than something we can separate out neatly, I think it's an important part of pro-life witness.

[Peace]

Yeah I struggle with giving. I give, but I know I could be giving more. I definitely don't "give till it hurts" and I feel guilty about that sometimes. I still have an attachment to material things to a certain extent that I wish I did not have.

[beatitude]

37 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah I struggle with giving. I give, but I know I could be giving more. I definitely don't "give till it hurts" and I feel guilty about that sometimes. I still have an attachment to material things to a certain extent that I wish I did not have.

I think being honest with ourselves about the strength of our attachments and the painful cost of giving is the first step to cutting loose from them. Relating it to the pro-life issue, the OP's point about adoption stood our especially clearly for me: "I know plenty of people who are pro-life, Catholic/Christian, and when I ask them weather they would adopt, every person and so called "Christian" comes up with some lame excuse. "I would but...(enter lame excuses here)..."

I wouldn't question the religious commitment of people who refuse to consider adopting, because we'd all be up the creek without a paddle if Jesus judged us solely by our failures. But it's a problem when the same people who feel unequal to the great responsibility and sacrifices involved in adopting/fostering a child talk about it so glibly as an alternative to abortion, as if it's the easiest thing in the world - both to adopt, knowing that most kids in the care system come with more than their fair share of problems; and to give birth knowing that you must surrender your child if you aren't in any position to parent. It isn't easy. If it were we'd all be doing it. We would bear a more credible witness if we admitted frankly that it is hard, due to both the scale of the challenge and our hardness of heart.

[Jack4]

3 hours ago, beatitude said:

It's theoretically possible for the government to provide all necessary services, but it doesn't happen. If it did there would be no need for charities.

"There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love". (DCE 28)

[beatitude]

22 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

"There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love". (DCE 28)

I'm unsure if you were trying to use this line to argue against the provision of a full slate services by the government, but if you were then I suspect a cancer patient would prefer to have untrammelled access to lifesaving treatment from the most uncompassionate, grouchiest doctor ever...as opposed to setting up a crowdfunding campaign and desperately hoping that enough caring people would donate for him to get the right treatment. From a professional who might still be uninterested and grouchy anyway.

Of course the love that goes into any service is down to every single individual person employed within it, but a government is more than capable of financing and providing the framework. Speaking as someone who currently works in a mental health hospital with people who have extremely severe problems, it's a lot easier to be kind and compassionate when you are well-resourced enough for stress and burnout not to be an issue.

[CatherineM]

I do know some people who are pro-life but only pro-birth. I'm not one of them. I am conception to natural death, but also believe in self defence and just war.