Are you really pro-life or are you just pro-birth?

United States
February 22, 2009 2:51pm CST
I was reading "Jesus For President" by Shane Claiborne, a graduate from my college, and it really got me thinking about abortion. I am a big admirer of Mother Teresa, a beautiful woman who stood behind her words. She was truly pro-life. She was adamantly against abortion, but she also spent much of her lives work supporting orphanages and taking in unwanted children. She did everything she could to help the poor, meaning that she helped families who might not have been able to support their children to be able to support them. She was also adamantly against war. So my question is, how can you advocate for abortion to be outlawed if you are not helping the orphans and adopting unwanted children? How can you advocate for abortion to be outlawed while at the same time complaining that there are too many social programs helping the poor? Who exactly is going to take care of all of these babies that are either unwanted or not able to be supported? How can you say you are pro-life when you support wars in which civilian casualties are inevitable and children and even unborn children are destined to be killed? I just don't get it. Please, someone explain it to me.
4 people like this
10 responses
@caver1 (1765)
• United States
23 Feb 09
I have often thought I would be happy to adopt if it were not so cost prohibited. I certainly could afford to feed and clothe another child, but I can't afford the fees involved in adoption. I do support children's homes though my church and my actions (we spent a week last summer volunteering at a home for children). Nor do I support war, but I do support our troops that are involved in war and yes I do think there is a difference.
3 people like this
• United States
23 Feb 09
Hmmm.. but aren't the costs of pre-natal care and hospitalization about the same as adoption fees?
• United States
23 Feb 09
Yes probably about the same... but insurance helps to cover the costs of a birth, not adoption fees... DUH... there's where common sense should kick in but yet, obviously is non-existant in your world
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
Uh babygirl, why are you pretending that you know me and how much common sense I have?
@laglen (19779)
• United States
23 Feb 09
You are absolutely right. I am pro-life. I support our Pregnancy Resource Center that promotes adoption and counseling for pregnant women. It would be very irresponsible of me to adopt a lot of children since I do not have the resources to raise more children.
2 people like this
• United States
23 Feb 09
I am pro-life thank you very much. I'm a foster mother and my husband and I are discussing the posibility of adopting soon. Besides, abortion is murder because MOST abortions are because the woman "is not ready" to be a mom. It is just the most convenient form of "birth control" for them. War on the other hand, is a necessity that you people need to open your eyes and realize. Those casualties are horrible yes, but not intentional. They are not killed on purpose... abortion however, is knowingly killing your baby on purpose because you don't "feel like" taking care of your responsibilies. That's the differece... but if you (or really the majority of people anymore) had even remotely the slightest bit of common sense, you'd already know that.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
I don't know why you feel that your common sense is so much above average than others. It wouldn't be "common" sense if it was above average sense, would it? Seems like you need to go back to Lake Woebegone. Anyway, it's good to hear that you are a foster mother and considering adoption. I am not arguing that abortion isn't murder, I am arguing that it is murder. But when people don't step up to the plate and help take care of the children that mothers can't or don't want to take care of, they are not being pro-life, they are only being pro-birth.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
23 Feb 09
I don't understand why you are saying they aren't pro life in such circumstances. How exactly do you define life? Is life only when someone is financially secure and raised in a wealthy environment? Even children in third world countries have "life" regardless of their economic circumstances.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
23 Feb 09
"But I also hate the actions of the rich and middle-class who have the ability to make a difference in the lives of others and would rather make their own lives better and pretend that they are good people for standing up for the unborn while really doing nothing for the life that is already on earth!" But why do you assume that the rich and middle class behave that way? Have you checked the statistics on who gives the most to charity? Are you aware that republicans, of whom the majority are pro-life, give well above the national average to charity while democrats, who are primarily pro-choice, give significantly less? Obama and Biden for example gave an average of 1% and 0.1% of their income to charity while John McCain and Sarah Palin gave 27% and 3% respectively. Biden offended me the most as he gives roughly $300 a year to charity which is less than HALF of what I give while I make significantly less money than he does. I think you're going on a lot of assumptions here when you may want to look more closely at the facts. Most people who are against government run social programs actively fund private programs who do the same thing and do a better job of it. You're just looking at a party platform without looking at the actions of those party members outside of legislation.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
23 Feb 09
"how can you advocate for abortion to be outlawed if you are not helping the orphans and adopting unwanted children?" The simple answer to this is that pro-life people feel that it is better for a child to have a chance at life, however difficult, than to have no chance at all. Many orphanages are funded by churches. Many pro-life people attend church and donate to their churches which subsequently fund these orphanages. I personally have volunteered in soup kitchens, and orphanages as well as organizations that help terminally ill children. The big difference though, is that when I do that, "I" am choosing where my money goes and choosing to volunteer my time and money to help. I also know exactly where my time and money goes. I thoroughly research any and every non-profit I donate time and money to. It's why I won't involve myself with the United Way, Police Athletic League, and several other non-profits who fail to spend their money appropriately (97% of donations to PAL are used to pay the telemarketers who collect those donations). Since government transparency is nonexistant, I don't want my money going to social programs run by the government. Even if it was transparent, I don't believe in forced charity. For me to support a war I have to feel that there is a greater purpose for it. I feel that the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan are nothing like the innocent people being viciously raped and murdered by the Taliban. Many people in America have been protesting the Taliban since the mid 90's due to their treatment of women. Since the country really didn't have official murder records and only about 34% of the population is even literate we have no way of knowing how many people were dying there every day before the war began.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
You keep saying I... as if you should be in control of your own choices. But yet you want to be in control of the choices of pregnant women. What makes you so much better than them that you get to decide things for them?
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
23 Feb 09
"You keep saying I... as if you should be in control of your own choices. But yet you want to be in control of the choices of pregnant women. What makes you so much better than them that you get to decide things for them?" I don't want to "control" anyone. I am against abortion because I believe people may exercise their rights until they infringe upon the rights of others. Our constitution guarantees the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". When a women aborts a child they take away those rights. I am also against murder so by your definition I "want to be in control of the choices of murderers".
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
Except unborn children do not have constitutional rights because they are still a part of the mother and have no birth certificate. So that doesn't really apply, does it? I am not trying to take away the legitimacy of the claim that abortion is murder, rather, I don't think that it should be treated as such legally. I think that by my religion the taking of a life of an unborn child is complete murder. But we aren't in a theocracy. And instead of making it illegal, and putting it in women's minds that their rights are being taken away, we should instead give them better opportunities so they will know that their child will either be in good hands or that they will be able to support their child. And it should be love, not law, that stops a woman from having an abortion.
1 person likes this
@lampar (7597)
• United States
23 Feb 09
I am neither pro-choice or pro-life. i am 'pro-middle'. Both camps are extreme in their outlook and approach. I believe individual case of pregnancy is different, it should be look at individually and deal with the appropriate solution. It is wrong to throw at pregnant women into jail for wanting an abortion, and also wrong to allow all abortions without looking closely at the state of pregnancy and consequences, it is a complex issue that need lengthy consultation and discussion to find the right solution for the benefit of the fetus and the mother.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
I think that this is very true, and something that people don't often think about. Every case is different. I don't think abortion is right in any case, really, but there are some cases where I cannot blame a woman for wanting an abortion, especially if her and the babies life would be at risk otherwise.
• United States
23 Feb 09
Well, I don't know, I mean are you saying that a court should decide whether a mother can have an abortion or not? Because I think that may be getting into dangerous territory... that would be government-approved murder. I think that is worse than legalized abortion. I don't think it's right to kill an unborn child because of the way it was conceived and I don't see why the government should either.
1 person likes this
@lampar (7597)
• United States
23 Feb 09
I think that particular woman victim should have the right to decide for the unintended pregnancy instead of any body or legislator. That is the reason i emphasis repeatedly here, it is a far more complicated issue than politician or both camps want us to believe. If you are a victim to a rape or incest, then you should have the right and first priority to decide what is your decision in case of pregnancy as a result of the criminal act , if you choose otherwise, then consultation with a doctor, advocacy group for adoption or any other parenthood group should be granted to talk with her for possible change of mind, ultimately, she should have the final say at the beginning of her unintended pregnancy.
1 person likes this
@maximax8 (29135)
• United Kingdom
24 Feb 09
I was reading something that said "the most dangerous place for a baby is in his or her mother's womb" the other day. The aborted babies are the missing people of the world. There must be many that would have been really great people. Perhaps one of them might have come up with a cure for cancer. I am pro-life and would never have an abortion. I admired Mother Theresa when she was alive. She helped many poor people and taking care of orphaned children. I am against war because I believe in peace. I am a primary school teacher. I have helped a few children that were abused at home and got them a safe place to live. I have taught the children to be the sort of people that will help charities that assist the poor and save the orphans.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
This is a very interesting post. I myself am Pro-life for my-self but Pro-choice for everyone else. Of course I wish people didn't have to consider abortions but sometimes that is the way it is. I don't want to take away that avenue for someone just because its not the one that I would take. I do agree that when most people say that they are Pro-Life it means that they are just anti- abortion. I'm not saying all pro-life people are like that that its just what this label of being Pro-Life has been made by our polictics and the media. This term will forever be linking to the abortion issue. It is not an all incompassing term of what a person truly believes in when it comes to life, not just unborn life, but people that are here now.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
Thanks for your comment. I feel the same way. And I think the terminology has a lot of misplaced concreteness in it, like you said, it's not an all encompassing term of ones outlook on life, but the terminology suggests otherwise. It's practically demonizing to call someone "pro-choice" as if they are "pro-murder." Just because someone doesn't think that illegalizing abortion is the answer doesn't mean that they are FOR abortion.
@suspenseful (40316)
• Canada
23 Feb 09
AS far as adoption is concerned, the adoption agencies regulate who is to adopt in what they consider "the best interest of the child" and if they were to say people who are pro=life have to prove they are pro=life by adopting, then they might give them children they are unable to care for - for instance, someone with medical knowledge could care for a handicapped child, but someone who just has a grade four education or is of the working class may not know what to do when the child goes into convulsions. Also sometimes the adoption agencies have their own agenda and I am sure, like those grandparents in Scotland, there are people who would love to adopt children, but the social workers decide that they are too religious, not the same ethnic group, do not make enough money, are too strict, etc. so they are refused adoption. So it is not that they do not want to adopt, it is the red tape that gets in their way and I am sure that you would not want them to go to blackmarket babies - or do you? Now as for wars, there are just and unjust wars. Do you really want to live in a dictatorship because no one is getting killed? That is peace at all costs. That is not peace at all. That is slavery. Of course the innocent get killed, but those who are casualities of war are not deliberately murdered. The troops and the airplane shooting the bombs thought the enemy soldiers did not have their families visiting and they thought that building was a munitions factory not a school and they did not expect the terrorists to hide in a church. I think that you want pro=life people to be punished by forcing them to adopt children they cannot handle so that they will be so overwhelmed that they will become pro-choice. As has been said, a method of your madness.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Feb 09
"I think that you want pro=life people to be punished by forcing them to adopt children they cannot handle so that they will be so overwhelmed that they will become pro-choice. " Actually, wouldn't it be pro-life people who want to punish mothers who would otherwise have an abortion by forcing her to have children that she cannot handle? I am not suggesting that people who do not have the means to adopt children do so. But that doesn't mean that they can't support a teen mother or a poor mother financially. That doesn't mean that they can't help out at orphanages. That doesn't meant they can't dedicate their time being with children with disabilities. Anyone who fights for abortion to be outlawed and yet does nothing to help poor mothers and unwanted children is a disgust to me, because they want to do exactly what you said: force women to take care of children that they cannot handle.
• Philippines
24 Feb 09
i am both pro-life and pro-birth...if you are not pro-life..you hate life and if you are not pro-birth you still hate life...because inside it is the word life...life is an essence to God..this is my idea and i know there are people in the world supported this idea..happy mylotting..
1 person likes this
@katran (590)
• United States
27 Feb 09
Eh, I'm going to try not to sound angry in this, even though I am, so bear with me for a moment or two. I can't claim to know you. I think we agree on some things and disagree on others, and I usually respect your opinions, but I do think you miss the point a lot on this one. You seem to be against moralizing or legislating morality at least, and yet you are making sweeping moral judgments that I find kind of pointless and short-sighted. I am against murder. I am against the murder of any human being. I am against the murder of adults, children, infants, and unborn infants. It is not about just babies, it is about the human race in general. I do not think innocent people should be killed. You could easily say I'm pro-life with regards to adults. Does that mean I am also responsible for caring for all the potential adult murder victims in the country? Should all pro-lifers be carrying the weight of the country while everyone else gets a free ride, because it was the pro-life people who thought they should have a chance to live in the first place! Of course not. That would be an absurd thing to say. It is also absurd to say that you have no right to be pro-life if you don't adopt children to become a foster parent or give money to orphanages. What about people who are too poor to give their money to orphanages or to adopt children. Do they not have the right to be pro-life? What about someone like myself who is not old enough to adopt children, a student with no income. Do I not have the right to be pro-life? How come you are telling me that my morality is illegitimate while trying to press your own brand of morality - charity - on me? Don't get me wrong. I do plan to adopt someday as well as have kids of my own. I have donated both time and money to soup kitchens and the like before. I am not advocating against charity by any means. I am simply saying that your argument is offensive to me. You are questioning my (and the majority of Americans) sincere belief that abortion is murder simply because you don't think we are charitable enough. First of all, what do you know about it? And second of all, a crime is a crime is a crime. As for the war thing...I'm not even going to go there, because you simply should know better than that.