General Question

kenmc's avatar

Wouldn't "Pro-Life" mean not killing anybody? Why do extreme "pro-lifeer"s find killing someone acceptable?

Asked by kenmc (11773points) June 8th, 2009

Doesn’t that utterly go against any actual pro-life thought?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Pro-lifers tend to be “pro-life” until the the fetus is born. After that they seem to be all too willing to withhold funds from education, withhold funds from health care and send those lives to die into hostile conflicts all around the globe.

jrpowell's avatar


I’m more confused about why they stop caring after people are born.

edit :: what The_Compassionate_Heretic said…

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

Extremists of any ilk are dangerous.

Dog's avatar

It seems very general to assume that pro- lifers want to kill non-fetuses.
Can you give us a link or reference so we can understand what you are referring to?
From what I have seen, which granted may be limited, the two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Just sayin.

kenmc's avatar

@Dog The question was inspired by this question

Along with that, the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, I’m trying to understand why people in the extreme “pro-life” position find murder acceptable.

jrpowell's avatar

Your “pro-life” is my “anti-choice”.

Dog's avatar

Excellent reference! Now I can see where you are coming from. The Tiller case is a great example of fanaticism and contradiction.

I have not followed the story. Off to google.

@johnpowell- It was the generalization that was at issue- not the stand of pro choice etc. I would have brought to point any question regarding any issue so general without a reference. You know- like the questions that say “Why do all (fill in blank)”

DrasticDreamer's avatar

One of the raging debates in my philosophy class was about abortion. A ton of highly anti-choice (I’m talking about anti-choice even in cases of rape here) believed in the death penalty. Didn’t surprise me at all.

kenmc's avatar

@DrasticDreamer Irony’s a fickle mistress…

Dog's avatar

“What is unknown now is whether Roeder is simply a mentally ill man who could have turned violent on behalf of any number of causes. Family members have said Roeder was diagnosed with schizophrenia but refused treatment.”

This is a hero to some? The man was obviously ill.

In answer to your question It is a contradiction to take a life when one takes a stand against death. This man made himself judge, jury and executioner.

essieness's avatar

I agree with the sentiment that extremists of any kind are scary and dangerous. People can get so wrapped up in their beliefs that their view of reality becomes very skewed and they do things they might not do otherwise. Hatred is hatred, whether it’s obvious or wrapped in the “Word”.

archer's avatar

wouldn’t pro-choice mean approval of choice in all things?

archer's avatar

people that don’t understand the difference in taking the life of the innocent and taking the life of the guilty who victimize the innocent just astound me.

FutureMemory's avatar

Some religious zealots (of which it seems the vast majority of extreme pro-life Anti-Choice people are) have a curious habit dangerous sickness of the mind that makes them believe they have the right to enforce a particiular interpretation of their god’s so-called Laws non-sensical backward view of how Everyone should live their life (in the Land of the Free), to the point they feel it’s their duty to commit the most the most heinous transgression of codified law which curiously enough is the very thing they are supposedly against. It’s a good thing they’re not poisioning their children’s minds with such rubbish, that way we can be hopeful such insanity just might one day vanish from our world. Oh, wait-

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@archer Do you have any idea how many “guilty” people have been murdered on death row, only to be proven innocent years later through technological testing, such as DNA? Do you have any idea how many people have been released from death row, for the same reasons? I had to do a lot of research for a college essay and the numbers are astounding. It begs the question of how many more innocent people will die on death row.

Critter38's avatar

people that don’t understand or don’t care about the difference between possessing and not possessing pain perception just astound me.

people that take something on faith (eg. the existence of souls) and think the rest of us need to factor this nonsense into our legal framework astound me.

people that care more about stem cells than they do about their potential to cure suffering children and adults astound me.

people who claim to be Christian but don’t read or comprehend John 8:7 astound me

And besides that, it astounds me how much god dislikes foetuses. Perhaps he finds them icky…along with women apparently.

MacBean's avatar

There are actually people who self-identify as pro-life but who don’t believe there should be anti-abortion legislation. They are personally against abortion for moral reasons but still don’t think the option should be taken away from women. They don’t realize this makes them pro-choice. The extreme pro-lifers are not really pro-life. They are, as @johnpowell brought up, anti-choice.

oratio's avatar

I think few people believe abortion is the preferable option, and in the best of worlds no woman would chose that option. But if we don’t allow women to chose, we will have illegal abortions on a black market, women killing themselves, children born into situations they never deserved, and parents that can’t or will not take care of them.

The body belongs to the woman, and the woman is the one that would be taking care of this child for decades, with or without the father. The choice must be hers.

It is not removing a tick. For many women it is a trauma, and nothing they want to go through because it’s fun or convenient. It is mostly not a decision taken in a whim. People who claim it is used as a late contraceptive haven’t gone through that. Having an abortion is also not without risks, as it can diminish – or even remove – the possibility to have children later in life.

My sister was gang raped a couple of years ago. Having a child from that experience is a choice the woman alone must take. Not by other people who has decided they belong to a higher set of principles, and that they have the right to force people to adhere to them. That would have been the last thing she needed.

There are of course questionable people in the world that abuses their own body or doesn’t care for anything, such as women who has had several abortions and gets pregnant again and again. Those women are few and there are extremes in every aspect of life, but we can’t legislate away stupidity.

If you are against abortion, the answer is simple. Don’t have one.

rooeytoo's avatar

Three cheers and lurve too for oratio!

Very well said.

mattbrowne's avatar

My personal goal is zero abortions worldwide as a result of zero unwanted pregnancies. Couples have to think about the consequences before having sex. Casual sex without clarity about contraception is irresponsible.

Good sex education will lead to good birth control measures (thank God Sarah Palin isn’t Vice President). We also need to fight religious dogmas that tell people not to use contraception.

I am against punishing women or doctors for having an abortion. Free societies can’t force women to have a baby against her will. But as I said earlier the goal should be it never comes to that. But if it does, women need all the help and support of society including good counseling.

So, I am against abortion and pro-choice.

casheroo's avatar

Because some people are fucking crazy.

btko's avatar

@boots, Good question and I agree that it seems to be true for the most part. I’d like to say that I might be one of the rare exceptions. I don’t believe in abortion as a form of birth control nor do I believe in capital punishment. Perhaps a true pro-lifer?

I see what you mention all of the time though – and I’d argue that your point is also true of people pro-abortion. People very open to abortion for any reason abhor the death penalty.

MacBean's avatar

@btko I don’t think I personally know anyone who believes in abortion as a form of birth control. It’s always discussed as a last resort, when (sometimes multiple) other forms of birth control have failed, when there are serious medical issues, and in cases of rape/incest/etc. I’m sure there must be someone out there who is like “Yay, abortion!” but I have never spoken to anyone who identifies as ‘pro-abortion.’ Even—possibly especially—people who are pro-choice recognize it as a difficult decision and a serious issue. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choicers realize that it is not their difficult decision to make or their serious issue to consider unless their mind and body are being affected by it.

dalepetrie's avatar

Here’s the mindset of the “pro-lifer” who believes in murdering abortion doctors (or in Tiller’s case, to use the proper term, aborting them in the 690th trimester).

1) Life begins at conception – BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO
2) Ergo, abortion is wrong…PERIOD.
3) If I don’t do God’s will, I will go to HELL.
4) If I stand by and let babies get murdered, I am not doing God’s will.
5) Therefore, I must kill the baby killer, God would sooner forgive me for that than He would for standing by and allowing baby murder to happen.

There’s just a faction of people out there who are so convinced that everything they do, they do for God and they will not be convinced otherwise.

Bottom line, you can’t argue with someone if they are capable of making up their minds about something with no evidence to back it up. These are people who act out of emotion, belief, attitude, prejudice and moral certitude…which essentially is like saying, “even though I can’t prove what I believe, I KNOW I’m right and you’re wrong and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.”

So all it takes is for some person who has moral certitude that abortion is wrong to decide that God would rather have him murder a baby killer than to allow the continued slaughter of innocents, and viola, you have a potential abortion doctor murderer.

benjaminlevi's avatar

@DrasticDreamer Well Troy is up for his turn pretty soon…

archer's avatar

If you are against abortion, the answer is simple. Don’t have one.

that one always cracks me up. it’s not simple, it’s simplistic and absurd.

if you are against rape, the answer is simple. don’t rape anyone.


Critter38's avatar

I recommend the following article:

For those interested in pain perception:

“Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.

Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

JAMA. 2005 Aug 24;294(8):947–54.

This is also one of the few articles I have seen which examines the complexity of cases that Dr Tiller had to deal with.

oratio's avatar

@archer Whatever you think about planned parenthood, there is a fundamental difference between rape and abortion. Abortion is one of two unfortunate choices, and there to help women in a difficult situation. Rape is not. It is committed in order to hurt people.

My point is that the woman must be considered, and it is not your place to make that choice for her. When you want to make abortion illegal, you are not considering history. This is one of the consequences of making it illegal.

If you want to show how serious you are about your beliefs, I suggest you adopt as many deserted children as you can, and care for them through college.

I am glad I amuse you, and you are right. I agree that if you are against rape, you shouldn’t rape anyone.

archer's avatar

@oratio unbelievable that you have taken the time to state the obvious differences between rape and abortion.

i thought my point was obvious, but if not…here’s another example. slaveowner to abolitionist, hey if you’re against slavery, just don’t have one. obviously if the abolitionist is in fact an abolitionist, he’s not going to have a slave, and his not having one does nothing to end the wrong he’s opposing.

MacBean's avatar

@archer—Since outlawing abortion takes away women’s choices and essentially turns them into nothing but incubators, I don’t think you really have any right to bring up anti-slavery to support your side of the argument.

oratio's avatar

@archer You are trying to prove how bad that statement was by making it a general one, that if it’s not valid in every situation, it’s not valid at all. If I respond to this as I responded to your rape simile, you can just take up another example that has nothing to do with Women’s Rights and where it wouldn’t apply.

That little sentence didn’t make up the point of my original comment, but it was the only criticism you had. I have to assume you agree with the rest, so why don’t we forget that little sentence altogether.

I seem to either make you laugh or become befuddled. I am not sure what answer you want, but I stand for what I said.

archer's avatar

@macbean but you feel, evidently that you have the right to refer to the majority of women who are prolife as incubators. that’s lovely

archer's avatar

@oratio as regards your last comment, it’s befuddled

archer's avatar

the major gulf in our different perspectives is that you are coming at it from a “woman’s rights” perspective, while i, from a “protection of the innocent” perspective. i think that rights never extend to victimizing the innocent

oratio's avatar

@archer Ok. And these children that you would forcefully put to the world, will you help their mothers economically, emotionally and/or through school or with work? Will you see to that the children are cared for? Or do your concern about these children disappear the moment they leave the woman’s body?

archer's avatar

another distraction, your attempt to personalize this.

the true force is in abortion, not birth.

look, we both understand the others position. no point in dragging this on any further. it’s bound to come up again at some point anyway, and we will both be compelled to go at it again when it does.

i’ve debated this issue so much that i’m burned out on it.

rooeytoo's avatar

@archer – The argument Oratio makes is a valid one. There are so many unwanted children, physically and emotionally abused, neglected. Why do you think you have the right to judge that another unwanted one should be brought into this world.

I truly believe that all the people who spend so much time and energy trying to make women have children they do not want or feel capable of raising for 18 years should instead devote that energy to helping the kids who are already here and running wild and uncared for and unloved.

I am sure the god who is telling you to protect these bunches of cells, would smile upon you much more for that than it does for going around killing doctors and harassing women who are already distraught because they are making a very difficult decision.

MacBean's avatar

@archer: Pro-life women are not incubators, and I did not say or even imply that. If a woman chooses to have a child, that’s absolutely wonderful. But if a woman’s right to choose is taken away and she is forced to have a child against her will, then, yes, I feel the people forcing her are treating her as an incubator instead of as a human being. I think legislation outlawing abortion is morally reprehensible and dehumanizing, and people who put “life” that can’t sustain itself outside the womb before the being the womb belongs to are disgusting.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther