Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Liberal Pro-lifers?
5 years ago  ::  Mar 04, 2010 - 6:19PM #1
MarAvery
Posts: 8

This is not a thread for debate.  I am curious if there are any pro-lifers out there who consider themselves a liberal. 


I am writing a paper on the subject, so once again, I could care less about the arguements for or against abortion. 


Some questions:


What is the foundation of your belief?  Is it based on science, spirituality, religion or something else? 


Do you have an affiliation with any pro-life groups?


Why has the issue become a party line?  (I would like your opinion here)


Why have the liberals (in general) taken the pro-choice stance, especially in politics?  (Opinion or facts, if you have some.)


Do you feel like you are not represented?  Do you feel like an oxymoron?  Do you feel like you have a sound mind, but nowhere to speak it?


Anything else that anyone would like to add that isn't argumentative would be great.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 04, 2010 - 11:06PM #2
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Mar 4, 2010 -- 6:19PM, MarAvery wrote:


This is not a thread for debate.  I am curious if there are any pro-lifers out there who consider themselves a liberal. 


I am writing a paper on the subject, so once again, I could care less about the arguements for or against abortion. 


Some questions:


What is the foundation of your belief?  Is it based on science, spirituality, religion or something else? 


Do you have an affiliation with any pro-life groups?


Why has the issue become a party line?  (I would like your opinion here)


Why have the liberals (in general) taken the pro-choice stance, especially in politics?  (Opinion or facts, if you have some.)


Do you feel like you are not represented?  Do you feel like an oxymoron?  Do you feel like you have a sound mind, but nowhere to speak it?


Anything else that anyone would like to add that isn't argumentative would be great.




Hi.  While I am pro-choice (and a liberal) I will acknowledge that there are pro-life liberals whose points of view are important and should be carefully considered.


They hold what is called a 'consistent life ethic'.  That is, they are prolife as far as abortion is concerned, but they are also opposed to war, the death penalty, torture, and so on.  Their perspective is the ONLY (imho) justifiable pro-life position.  These people, and they are in the tiniest minority among the prolifers, are also in favor of supporting families after birth, too, with health care, school funding, preschool funding, college funding, and welfare support if necessary.  Most have liberal leanings on many other issues, too, such as gay rights.


It is true that politically, things get polarized.  Liberal pro-lifers who demonstrate the CLE are a minority of liberals, too.  Most liberals are concerned that the rights of women to control their reproductive destinies are not diminished by elevating a non-sentient, non-viable fetus to 'personhood', but the CLE prolifers would counter that pregnancy is a temporary condition, and that all humans would benefit by providing protections to fetuses.


While I disagree with this point, I respect the ethic in general, and the consistent way it is applied by these prolifers.


Hope that helps.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2010 - 11:35PM #3
MarAvery
Posts: 8


Thanks for the post Sis,


I went back to read more on the term CLE.  Thanks for bringing my attention to it. 


So, you acknowledge liberal pro-lifers are out there, and my research says so too, but none of them responded yet.  I think you summed up their position pretty well.  Although, I really would like to hear what they have to say.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 12:01PM #4
Bei1052
Posts: 986

 


...And, for the love of *enter deity here*, abortion, war and the death penalty are all unrelated.


non-sentient, non-viable fetus to 'personhood'


Corporations, which are neither sentient, viable, living nor even born, lol @ you.

Moderated by Marysara722 on Mar 09, 2010 - 07:48PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 12:32PM #5
amcolph
Posts: 17,475

Mar 9, 2010 -- 12:01PM, Bei1052 wrote:


...And, for the love of *enter deity here*, abortion, war and the death penalty are all unrelated.




That may be, but there are a large number of people who are pro-life, pro-war and pro-death penalty and who offer the same justification for all three positions.


I think it is excusable for a person who 'doesn't go out much' to form the impression that there is some relationship.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 4:59PM #6
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Mar 9, 2010 -- 12:32PM, amcolph wrote:

That may be, but there are a large number of people who are pro-life, pro-war and pro-death penalty and who offer the same justification for all three positions.



That doesn't make them related :P


I think it is excusable for a person who 'doesn't go out much' to form the impression that there is some relationship.



Heck. You don't even have to go outside. You can do a simple internet search (But that kind of stuff is frowned upon around here).


Wilfull ignorance kills <_<


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 8:07PM #7
amcolph
Posts: 17,475

Mar 9, 2010 -- 4:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Mar 9, 2010 -- 12:32PM, amcolph wrote:

That may be, but there are a large number of people who are pro-life, pro-war and pro-death penalty and who offer the same justification for all three positions.



That doesn't make them related :P


I think it is excusable for a person who 'doesn't go out much' to form the impression that there is some relationship.



Heck. You don't even have to go outside. You can do a simple internet search (But that kind of stuff is frowned upon around here).


Wilfull ignorance kills <_<


 




I forgot pro-gun and anti-gay marriage. Wink


Actually, I see it more as a public relations problem.


Look how many people on this board alone have a hard time perceiving that you are making a 'secular' pro-life argument.


Consider the OP as well:  Surprise!  There actually are people who are pro-life without being right-wing religious loonies--a few, anyway.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 10:34PM #8
DGMelby
Posts: 970

[/lurk]


Heck, before I actually started researching the effects of the prohibition of abortion, and effective ways of reducing the incidence thereof, I came pretty darn close to being a pro-life liberal1.


Of course, my politics have changed2 over the last two years, so I no longer qualify.  For one thing, I'm no longer pro-life.  I describe myself as "pro-sane reproductive public policy."  The real problem isn't abortion-as-birth-control, it's just one part of the problem of unwanted pregnancies.  Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and you reduce the number of abortions.  After all, wanted pregnancies are never aborted, unless they go tragically wrong.


______________


1By "pretty darn close to being a pro-life liberal," I mean a left-leaning3 libertarian.  I was pro-life, but I hadn't been introduced to the idea that health care should be part of the "ensuring the general welfare," just like education, and police and fire protection, is.  And I didn't support the death penalty either.


2Environmentalism and Universal Health Care are two issues that I've reversed my previous positions on.  I keep getting more liberal as I get older, but I still feel strongly about certain libertarian positions.  I drive pollsters crazy. ^_^;


_______________


3By "left leaning libertarian," I mean I agreed with the libertarian party's position with a balancing the budget, reducing income and corporate taxes in favor of other means of getting revenue (such as import tarrifs),  and scaling back the military's role as the world's "police force," but parted ways with them on the subject of privatizing education4 and eliminating Medicare and Social Security.


_______________


4Abusing Footnotes is fun ^_^

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 09, 2010 - 11:37PM #9
MarAvery
Posts: 8

So, I'm figuring out how to quote here.

Mar 9, 2010 -- 8:07PM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 9, 2010 -- 4:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Mar 9, 2010 -- 12:32PM, amcolph wrote:

That may be, but there are a large number of people who are pro-life, pro-war and pro-death penalty and who offer the same justification for all three positions.



That doesn't make them related :P


Wilfull ignorance kills <_<


 




I forgot pro-gun and anti-gay marriage.

Actually, I see it more as a public relations problem.


Look how many people on this board alone have a hard time perceiving that you are making a 'secular' pro-life argument.


Consider the OP as well:  Surprise!  There actually are people who are pro-life without being right-wing religious loonies--a few, anyway.




So, do you think a liberal, or secular, non-right-wing-religious-loony's pro-life stance is  incongruous with their other beliefs?



Mar 9, 2010 -- 10:34PM, DGMelby wrote:


[/lurk]


Heck, before I actually started researching the effects of the prohibition of abortion, and effective ways of reducing the incidence thereof, I came pretty darn close to being a pro-life liberal1.


Of course, my politics have changed2 over the last two years, so I no longer qualify.  For one thing, I'm no longer pro-life.  I describe myself as "pro-sane reproductive public policy."  The real problem isn't abortion-as-birth-control, it's just one part of the problem of unwanted pregnancies.  Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and you reduce the number of abortions.  After all, wanted pregnancies are never aborted, unless they go tragically wrong.





I hate to break it to you, but I think you do fall into my focus group.  The "Pro-sane reproductive public policy" is also a common position (not quite that terminology) the liberal pro-lifers have.  The reason they have it is because it is a sane way to fight for the unborn.  I think it was Kerry (I could be wrong) that said "No one is pro-abortion," in defense of the pro-choice stance.  The same principle applies for the pro-life stance.  "Abortion is Murder", or whatever phrase causes all the divisiveness, is not the position of every pro-lifer.  Your's is a pretty pro-life stance, although I don't know if I know how you would feel about cases when abortion-as-birth control is the problem.


WooHoo!  Successful multiquote!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 10, 2010 - 10:38AM #10
DGMelby
Posts: 970

Mar 9, 2010 -- 11:37PM, MarAvery wrote:


I hate to break it to you, but I think you do fall into my focus group.  The "Pro-sane reproductive public policy" is also a common position (not quite that terminology) the liberal pro-lifers have.  The reason they have it is because it is a sane way to fight for the unborn.  I think it was Kerry (I could be wrong) that said "No one is pro-abortion," in defense of the pro-choice stance.  The same principle applies for the pro-life stance.  "Abortion is Murder", or whatever phrase causes all the divisiveness, is not the position of every pro-lifer.  Your's is a pretty pro-life stance, although I don't know if I know how you would feel about cases when abortion-as-birth control is the problem.



It's your study, so if you think I qualify...


Mar 4, 2010 -- 6:19PM, MarAvery wrote:


This is not a thread for debate.  I am curious if there are any pro-lifers out there who consider themselves a liberal. 


I am writing a paper on the subject, so once again, I could care less about the arguements for or against abortion. 


Some questions:



What is the foundation of your belief?  Is it based on science, spirituality, religion or something else?  This is a difficult question to answer, because the whole abortion issue is based on two ideals that come into conflict during a pregnancy:  the value of human life, and the right of body sovereignty.  Furthermore, there is a difference between personal ethics, and what I think public policy should be.


When it comes to me, personally, I value human life over bodily convenience.  This comes primarily from human compassion, empathy, and the ethics of reciprocity.  I personally believe that if you consent to have sex, you also consent to pregnancy.  But I very much understand why others may disagree, especially if they use birth control.  Especially since I have a family history of high-risk pregnancies.


(Of course, because this decision is, at this time, mine to make, there is no conflict with my sovereignty over my body.  But if abortion-as-birth-control was prohibited, I would never be faced with the awful decision of getting an abortion if I didn't want to be pregnant.  Unless I got pregnant as a result of rape. *knocks wood* I honestly don't know if I'd choose compassion over self-preservation in that situation, and I hope I never have to choose.)


When it comes to public policy, my position (pro-sane reproductive public policy) is primarily rational, but human compassion, empathy, and the ethics of reciprocity also have their role to play.  After careful study, I've concluded that prohibition was not effective at reducing the number of abortions; that the decision to abort was primarily an economic decision; it doesn't address the problem of unwanted pregnancies in the first place; and that under prohibition the poor had to risk getting an illegal and unsafe abortion, while those who could afford it just took a vacation to where abortion legal and safe.  Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancies are effective at reducing the number of abortions. 


In other words:  prohibition would not only be ineffective at reducing the number of abortions, but carries with it dire side effects, the bulk of which would be payed by the poor, while a society that genuinely values human life has a lower rate of abortion, because the decision is a personal one, rather than an economic one.


Do you have an affiliation with any pro-life groups?  No, because in my opinion, "pro-life" groups are pro-life in name only.  Pro-life groups seem less to care about life, as opposed to their conservative Christian sexual morals.  Their cry of "won't someone think of the children" seems to me a hypocritical decision, since their old cry of "now suffer the consequences of your sin, you dirty slut!" won't cut it these days.  Their opposition to abortion (and frequently birth control) is because unless you catch them in the act, you really can't tell who's been having sex and who hasn't (especially unmarried women), but a pregnant woman (virgin births not withstanding) is a sure sign that she's had sex.


If they really cared about children, then they'd support them after they come out of the womb.  But they oppose the very programs that can move a pregnancy from the unwanted column to the wanted one.  They oppose family planning, and sometimes contraceptives, and comprehensive sex education for children approaching reproductive maturity.


Why has the issue become a party line?  (I would like your opinion here)  Because the Religious Right sold its soul (or at least its followers) to the Republican Party to broaden that party's popular base.  There has been a general shift in this country away from the economic right, and they couldn't maintain effective just catering to the upper 10%, and those who believe in the illusion that they, too, can be (or are) part of that upper 10% as well.  So in exchange for paying lip service to conservative social issues, the Republican Party can remain competitive with the Democratic Party.


And when you've got one party that's defined itself as being "pro-life," and has kicked out anyone who, and the election system ensures a two-party system, guess what happens to the other party?


Why have the liberals (in general) taken the pro-choice stance, especially in politics?  (Opinion or facts, if you have some.)  Just like there has been a general shift to the left economically, there has also been a shift to the left socially in this country as well.  Part of it is that we are no longer a homogeneous population (real or imagined) anymore.  The days of the WASP hegemony are long over.  Further, there is a weak correlation between education and liberalism.  It seems to me that conservatism is frequently ruled by emotion, while liberalism is frequently ruled by reason, and the more I study, the more it seems that facts of the world aren't in accordance with what my beliefs were.


Finally, while the pro-choice camp are opposed to the prohibition of birth control, they are also pro-family planning, pro-education, pro-health care, and pro-social welfare, all of which are liberal issues.  Not to mention they are anti-war and anti-death penalty.  This is because they even though they value body sovereignty, they also value human life.  While the pro-life camp thinks that abortion should remain a choice, it doesn't mean that they think it's the best choice.


Do you feel like you are not represented?  Do you feel like an oxymoron?  Do you feel like you have a sound mind, but nowhere to speak it?  It depends.  On the one hand, like many in the United States, I view both pro-life and pro-choice as being two extremes in the spectrum, and for me abortion-as-birth-control is one symptom of a much bigger problem:  unwanted pregnancies.  That is the horse that pulls the abortion cart.  The pro-life movement insists on putting the cart before the horse, and then pretending the horse doesn't exist.  The pro-choice movement may want to keep the cart, but it also wants to hobble the horse.  If I have tho choose between the two, I'd choose pro-choice, because at least they see the real problem.


Once we've greatly reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies, then I might be willing to re-examine the possibility of prohibiting abortion-as-birth-control.  But abortion-as-birth-control is one tiny part of a much bigger issue.


On the other hand, our current winner-take-all plurality election system pretty much means that I have to choose between the two.  It's one reason why I support Instant Runoff Voting, and/or Cumulative Voting.  Because the only forum that really matters is the forum of the voting booth, and the only time I can speak my mind is when the election isn't close, when I can safely "throw my vote away" by voting for a 3rd party candidate that I'd most like to win.  When it is close, I have to decide who I don't want to win, and vote for the one most likely to defeat 'em.


Well, I hope this helps, because I know how much my refusal to be easily categorized drives some people crazy.  ^_^

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook