A typical, but more civil, message from a critic:
[Shouldn't] prolifers be more concerned about the life of the child AFTER birth instead of just worrying about the fetus' 9 month life? does that not make more sense? or is it just your concern that it makes it through the pregnancy and who cares that it enters into an abusive or poor home once it has been born? that's not what i would call prolife!Since the message is directed to "prolifers" in general, how would you respond?
I would respond simply that we do. I know of few pro-life activists who would not also help any child or person they came across needing help. In fact, I know of many who specifically fund and support programs to help the "already born" children.
I would ask why the pro-choice side feel the need to pigeonhole into the "anti-abortion" box, and seem ignorant of our other causes. I would also remind them of the sevarity of the abortion issue and the number of lives lost.
Overall I would say that it seems absurd for them to question our charity, most akin to us asking them "Why save the baby whales, but not the baby humans?" Sure it seems more than a little ironic, but their charity in one area shouldnt condem them in another.
When I get the "Why don't you prolifers care about BORN people!" I point out that when I get out of the ambulance and start pulling a person from a car wreck, I don't say, "by the way, I'm anti-abortion. Just so you know."
The people who say that only see us in an abortion context and so only see what we do in the abortion context. They have no idea what we do in our "off-time" because we don't go around with trumpet-blaring heralds announcing, "This good deed done by a right-to-lifer!" every time we do something.
If they got to know us, they'd know better.
I do not accept the premise of that question. As pro-lifers, we are opposed to the killing of unborn children. That's what "pro-life" means.
The question implies that we actively kill or allow the killing of born children. That's preposterous; no pro-lifer that I ever heard of wants to kill children who are outside the womb. Everyone is opposed to the active killing of born children.
This question also implies that death can be better than life; that poor children are better off dead, and that abused children are better off dead. I completely disagree, and I find it shocking that anyone would agree with such a position.
Most people who are both conservative and pro-life oppose socialist economic policies. Allegedly these policies would help the poor, in spite of the fact that socialist countries have poor people in them just like any other country. Most conservative pro-lifers prefer to help the poor via churches and charities, and thus don't support socialism.
So, really, I don't think it's a fair question. I think it's a very dishonest question which assumes things which simply aren't true. It would be like me asking a pro-abortion person, "Why do you enjoy killing children?"
The statement of the critic is false and unacceptable as being PRO-LIFE we are concerned with life from conception until a hopefully natural death.
Look, I got children and my ambition is to have lots more, feed them, take care of them, raise them, educate them to have lots and lots of grandchildren!
I have a continuing dicussion at http://www.pronatal.org
We are the pronatalists, the reproducers at prolife.
My question is - Shouldn't those having unprotected sex think about the consequences of what they are doing? I have a difficult time excusing the behavior of those who think abortion is a quick fix for promescuity.
Also, there are other options besides raising a child in poverty and abuse. I have read that the number of couples waiting to adopt a child is equal to the number of abortions performed a year. There is no reason a child that is not wanted should have to live unloved. Let them live and in a family that wants them!
This question is a diversionary tactic.
The crux of the fetal rights debate (because it's not really about abortion, but fetal rights) is: Is the unborn child deserving of equal rights under the law.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that pro-lifers really didn't care about unborn children after they're born. Never mind that they have kids, themselves, never mind that they promote abstinence and modesty and cultural decency and so forth, let's suppose for argument's sake we're callous heartless fascists.
What does this have to do with the crux of the debate? The question is: does the unborn child deserve equal rights. Whether pro-lifers are the scum of the earth, morally speaking, is not the question.
What I have noticed in the hundreds of debates I have had on this subject is that pro-aborts want to run away from the subject of the fetus as fast as possible. And when I say "fetus" I mean unborn child-- I think we should use "fetus" interchangeably with "unborn child" and thereby humanize THAT term and take away one weapon the pro-aborts have in de-humanizing him, but I digress...
They do not want to confront the issue. They want to make it secondary. To them, the issue is female autonomy. They don't want to be confused by the thought the unborn child is an equal. That just mixes everything up for them.
And another thing. Even if pro-lifers voted for every socialist initiative on the faith of the earth, even if pro-lifers managed to find the magic solution to end all poverty, all family strife, etc etc so that there would be no "need" for abortion, pro-aborts would still be for legalized abortion, but it's the right to abortion is primary. A true pro-abort thinks that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever-- even if she woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
So it's important that fetal rights activists not take the bait and keep the discussion on the crux of the argument: is the unborn child an equal, period. That's all. All other questions are secondary.
There are thousands of Crisis Pregnancy Care facilities around this country. They are not run by pro-aborts. They are not funded by pro-aborts. They are not supported by pro-aborts.
The only thing an abortion mill does for a woman after she has paid them to kill her child is give her something to drink so she won't feel dizzy. Then they push her out the door, hopefully before regret, sorrow & tears kick in.
Pro-abortion people have one mantra, "it's a woman's right to choose". Many of them go to their graves with that hollow statement.
Debates with them are extremely simple...I just ask, "choose what?".
Great responses - thanks... FYI, here is what I wrote:
Dear *****,
Thanks for the message.
A common accusation is that pro-lifers are only concerned about a child before before birth but then forget about him or her, as you've repeated. This ad hominem argument (e.g., pro-lifers are hypocrites) is then used fallaciously to reject the proposition that abortion is immoral.
The answer to your question is that we believe in the intrinsic dignity of all human life. This means that the value of a person is not determined based upon their race, gender, capabilities, income, intelligence, health status, development, maturity, etc. but instead is based upon the fact that they are humans.
Consequently, we do not de-value the unborn because they haven't been born yet. Instead, we believe the value of the person in the womb is equal to the value of the child that has just been born.
Personally, I believe the value of humans is reflected by the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for our sins because God valued us (you and me - and the unborn too) .
You seem to have a different view: the child born is more valuable than the child unborn. If I'm understanding you, the fact that an individual is born and subsequently matures into an adult increases his or her value.
Our belief is that the dignity and value of individuals is independent of their maturity or developmental status.
Given our belief in the dignity of human life, is it suprising to you that we speak out against the 4000+ abortions that occur daily in the United States? There have been 47,000,000 since 1973.
We are very concerned about the child who is born into an abusive home but do not believe killing him or her prior to birth is the solution. Similarly, we do not believe abortion is the solution to poverty. We support orphanages and adopt kids. We work with couples in abusive relationships and help the impoverished through crisis pregnancy centers. There is so much more ...
Hopefully, we can at least agree an unborn child is a person who doesn't deserve to be aborted because the circumstances of his or her life could be difficult. Similarly, a much greater emphasis must be placed upon building families that are loving and nurturing.
I hope this helps.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I don't give a damn about human beings once they are born. Let's further suppose I don't lift a finger to help them post-birth.
How does my alleged unwillingness to support a child justify an abortionist killing one?
Nothing here but the same old pro-abort tactic of attacking the person rather than the substance of his argument.
I essentially agree with all the comments above, but would add that there are any number of things that can happen that can change the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Death, illness, loss of income, accidents - the list is endless. To say just because someone is born into poverty or any other tragic circumstance they would be better off dead is really to put us all at risk. Also, this arguement completely ignores to potential in all of us to rise above our own tragedies. It is a very black and white approach to life's shades of grey.