What does it actually mean to be pro-life?

It seems that those aligning themselves to certain religions are very passionate about saving the unborn fetus yet when this fetus grows up and doesn't align with their values, they would round them up and kill them. Anyone else find this odd? So which is more valuable, the human or the meme?

Also, Religious pro-lifer's will oppose human cloning and might even have problems with IVF but those are techniques that add life. So which is more valuable, the human or the meme?

These cases where memes subordinate humans are among the issues that prevent me from finding God. Is there anyone who can show me the way?

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


I consider myself to be pro life. For me that means the right to life from the moment of conception up to a natural death. And yes, that means I am against the death penalty.

The only exception to this for me is a "just war." But I struggle to find an example of that. Perhaps the American Revolution where a group is fighting for its own freedom? Not sure.

edit to add: As far as cloning and IVF are concerned, I think adoption is a better option.

also: I'm not sure what you mean by "meme" in this context. Could you explain this further?

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Its simple biology: The Human Life Cycle begins at Conception.

Humans have the right to life, abortion kills living humans

Religion has nothing to do with it.

yet when this fetus grows up and doesn't align with their values, they would round them up and kill them.

.

This happens all the time of course... for instance; where & when, again?

That's the major problem that I have with the democrat and republican ideologies. It seems they are both tailor made to be the perfect blend of wrong ideas, or have at the very least evolved that way.

A great example is the pro-life vs pro-choice crowds. Generally, as a political ideology, republicans are pro life but pro death penalty. Democrats are pro choice, but anti death penalty. In the case of the death penalty, its breaking the law to an extreme extent. In the case of abortion, the fetus can't be a certain age or older, or the mother must be at a severe health risk or other factors. At its fundamental core, both the death penalty and abortions are state sanctioned murder as long as very specific requirements are met.

It blows me away from an ethics viewpoint that one could be either of these ideologies.

Both republican and democrat ideologies fail logic tests for almost every major issue they take a stance on by taking the opposite stance on a different but fundamentally ethically identical issue.


Edit: Expanding on my point to better clarify how #-brained these political ideologies are here are two examples:

1. A democrat will tell me that everyone should have equal opportunity. Great, I have no problem with that. Then in the very same breath they will explain how there need to be exceptions such as affirmative action (an almost exclusively democrat policy). It immediately contradicts the first statement by its very nature of exception. Logic test failed.

2. A republican will tell me corporate lobbying of governments is good capitalism, then in the very same breath tell me free markets are efficient. It contradicts the first statement because a corporate lobbied government explicitly makes free markets relatively inefficient by making the market not free by being full of government mandates. Logic test failed.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
Its simple biology: The Human Life Cycle begins at Conception.

Humans have the right to life, abortion kills living humans

Religion has nothing to do with it.

End of story...

These cases where memes subordinate humans are among the issues that prevent me from finding God.

The purpose BEHIND religion is to stop you from finding God.

God has NOTHING to do with religion.

Religion is the enemy of God.

NEVER forget that...

reply to post by Galvatron


Not entirely, put another way, the two points of view could be described thusly:

Kill the innocent baby and spare the raping murderer.

Or:

Spare the innocent baby and kill the raping murder.

Only one of those statements aligns itself with the instinct of survival and preservation of the human tribe.

The subjective moral judgement has nothing to do with objective ethics. As stated before, both cases are state sanctioned murder so long as very specific requirements are met.

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Why not spare the innocent baby and lock up the raping murderer?

Besides the hyperbole in your post I can agree with some of it,

Its always been my view, that "religious" People who are adamantly pro-life should lead by example and go adopt one of the many children in America instead of holding a protest sign.

More would be accomplished that way if every young mother facing the choice to abort knew that her child would be brought up in a good home and not languish in the system.

Every time I see these people who berate a women whose faced with making one of the hardest choices in life it saddens me, How bout offering the child shes carrying a home if you're so "christian".

whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me

You know that whole thing.

reply to post by benrl


I agree with what you're saying. And there is a waiting list of couples ready to adopt.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Why not spare the innocent baby and lock up the raping murderer?

Because they are a raping murderer who has forfeited their human rights by their inhuman actions.

To punish the tribe with the burden of this clear threat to the survival of the tribe, with the responsibility of caring and feeding a monster is counter to natural selection and evolution.

It makes sense to remove demonstrated threats to the survival of the tribe. Anything else is de-evolutionary.

It is all the little gray areas that keep us struggling for the real truth. Those gray areas are why we have lawyers and courts and juries. They are why we have opposite political views. They are why we have about 20 world religions with several hundred sub-religions.

The gray areas give us "Thou shalt not kill" and also "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".

Develop your conscience, hone it, then follow it. Finding God is a personal journey that involves conversation with Him. You form a friendship and that means YOU get to talk, too. It's called prayer. Lay it out there then go about your business. Soon, when the ego chatter has settled down, you will "hear" that reply when you least expect it.

The term "pro-life" is a politically correct way of saying "pro-government intrusion".

Pregnancy is a singularly unique situation. It is my opinion that an individual person should always have the choice of what happens to their person. If something is growing in my body, I want the right to make the decision about it, no matter WHAT it is. Whether it's a human life, a cancerous tumor, or a kidney that I may wish to donate. It is in my body and it belongs to me and I should have the right to make decisions about it. I also support Death with Dignity and the right to commit suicide. The government already dictates too much of what we do and invades our privacy beyond limits. The "pro-life" agenda supports further intrusion by the government into our lives and I'm VERY much against that.

Having said that, I personally would not choose to have an abortion, and I would fight viciously for that choice. So, I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. They're personal choices, not something for society or the government to dictate to others.

.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

Why not spare the innocent baby and lock up the raping murderer?

Because they are a raping murderer who has forfeited their human rights by their inhuman actions.

To punish the tribe with the burden of this clear threat to the survival of the tribe, with the responsibility of caring and feeding a monster is counter to natural selection and evolution.

It makes sense to remove demonstrated threats to the survival of the tribe. Anything else is de-evolutionary.

Okay, so in one instance you agree with state sanctioned murder, but the other you don't. Do you think you ought to have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if you so feel threatened? Perhaps you are at home and someone breaks into your home. In many US states, the Castle doctrine would absolve you of all guilt for killing the interloper. In that instance, you have committed state sanctioned murder so long as very specific requirements are met. Was the murder just? Did you have the right to take someones life? Who are you to play judge jury and executioner? See what I'm getting at? The moral judgement has no bearing on the objective ethics.

Personally, I'm pro abortion, pro death penalty, pro castle doctrine. I try to keep my standards in line with one another.

I think Marlon Brando's character in "Apocalypse Now" said it best.

"...because they could stand it, these were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres — these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love — but they had the strength, the strength to do that... ... ...without passion, without judgment. Without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us. "

life |līf|
noun ( pl. lives |līvz| )
1 the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death: the origins of life.
• living things and their activity: some sort of life existed on Mars | lower forms of life | the ice-cream vendors were the only signs of life.
• [ with adj. or noun modifier ] a particular type or aspect of people's existence: an experienced teacher will help you settle into school life | revelations about his private life | his father decided to start a new life in California.
• vitality, vigor, or energy: she was beautiful and full of life.
2 the existence of an individual human being or animal: a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 Americans | she didn't want to die; she loved life.
• a biography: a life of Shelley.
• either of the two states of a person's existence separated by death (as in Christianity and some other religious traditions): too much happiness in this life could reduce the chances of salvation in the next.
• any of a number of successive existences in which a soul is held to be reincarnated (as in Hinduism and some other religious traditions).
• a chance to live after narrowly escaping death (esp. with reference to the nine lives traditionally attributed to cats).
3 (usu. one's life) the period between the birth and death of a living thing, esp. a human being: she has lived all her life in the country | I want to be with you for the rest of my life | they became friends for life .
• the period during which something inanimate or abstract continues to exist, function, or be valid: underlay helps to prolong the life of a carpet.
• informal a sentence of imprisonment for life.
4 (in art) the depiction of a subject from a real model, rather than from an artist's imagination: the pose and clothing were sketched from life | [ as modifier ] : life drawing. See also still life.

Everyone who is alive is "pro-life".

As far as a fetus being a living individual, that is debatable. Until the umbilical cord is cut, the mother and the fetus are one.

A child is a child regardless if its in the womb or not.

Once the seed hits the egg it is a human and goddamn you for taking its life.

Sorry....I get emotional on this topic.

reply to post by Galvatron


The state has nothing to do with who is a human or not, science has long settled the issue.

Again: The Human Life Cycle begins at Conception.

Human rights exist outside of any state recognition of them or not.

Humans are free to commit actions that forfeit their rights. That's free choice with accompanying consequence.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


clarification:

en.wikipedia.org...

In simple terms, ideas, held collectively in human minds can become more important than the single human. Humans would kill or die for the sake of the collective idea. There are a relatively small set of memes which have attained this status.

reply to post by Hopechest

Originally posted by Hopechest
A child is a child regardless if its in the womb or not.

I feel the same, but it's an opinion. Other people should not have to live their lives to coincide with MY opinion.Or yours.

Once the seed hits the egg it is a human and goddamn you for taking its life.

I agree. Let God deal with it if it's "wrong"... but it's not the government's place to intrude into the privacy of someone's body. Or to "damn" someone.

reply to post by TheWrightWing


I agree with you that fundamental human rights are beyond the state and therefore societal system. That's why the US constitution is such a good one. As an agreement between the state and the people on how the state ought to act with regards to the people under threat of dismantlement or having its authority ignored, the US constitution is a great one in that it recognizes that human rights exist beyond the scope of the state. My point was that law is expressly the purpose of the state. The system by which those in the society agree to live by either through actively pursuing the legislation, or accepting it. Law is what decides whether or not a criminal gets put to death, law decides whether or not an abortion is sanctioned. In that regard, moral judgement abrogates the objectivity of law.