I also gave examples above of people who identify as atheists yet disapproves the term "atheist" and a feminist who identifies as a feminist yet disapproves of the term "feminism." It's odd that you'd catch the thing I posted earlier yet miss the part I posted later.
Have you noticed the key difference between them and you yet? They disapprove. You don't. Indeed, you've specifically said that you neither approve nor disapprove of it...which means, what, exactly? That you're apathetic? That you don't think about it? That you like it and dislike it at the same time?
I have no formal position on the word. None. As I've said earlier in this thread, the term is neutral to me. I neither approve of it nor disapprove of it. I do think it does a fair job of summing up the general position of the pro-life crowd on life issues, but otherwise I don't really care all that much. Not everything in the word perturbs me, and the word "pro-life" does not.
The above reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama more than anything. You're being very careful not to say anything meaningful except that you think it's a fair descriptive term, which doesn't exactly say that much. More to the point, it contributes to that appearance of disingenuousness - as in, lacking candor and/or sincerity - that I keep complaining about. You say a lot of words, but you don't really tell anyone anything useful by saying them.
People are going to call names regardless of what terms we use. "Murderer" will be used regardless of what those against abortion call themselves. Are "anti-life" and "anti-choice" such huge problems that we need to abandon the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?" I don't know. Probably not. Do I particularly care, and/or does it affect my life in any significant way? Not really.
Then maybe you can enlighten me on something. If you don't particularly care about things like this, then why are you talking about it?
My bad. In other words, I don't run around calling people anti-life. If you hold a position contrary to pro-life ideals, and because of this you wish to infer that you're "anti-life," be my guest. If someone else calls you anti-life, feel free to punch them or whatever won't get you arrested.
Excellent question. The basic tenet of the philosophy is that human life has an intrinsic value that supersedes all other values. So regardless of how much money you're paid, it's always wrong to kill someone, for example.
Because of this, the conflicts we address are generally between the potential death of one life vs. another. Obviously we could go on for pages discussing the nitty gritty details, but in general we err on the side of protecting the more innocent party. For instance, if your life is being threatened by someone else, it is ok to use self-defense that may result in the aggressor's death because you are the more innocent party. Also, we tend to look more to positive action vs. passive inaction. For instance, a mother throwing her child in front of a car is far more culpable than a mother who fails to be a hero by diving in front of a car to save her child.
Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting. Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?
Also, what about a situation that's less clear-cut? Like, say, someone who's otherwise innocent risking their life to help save the life of someone who's not. Let's say you have a convicted murderer, and someone gets beaten to death shielding him from an angry mob?
Any induced termination of a human from conception until delivery.
Alright. I don't agree with your definition (given that there's a sizable percentage of miscarriages even today with modern medicine, at least in the first trimester), but that's a bit beside the point.
Smoking is a risk factor for all sorts of things that can lead to death, but it is not a form of suicide. People generally don't smoke because they want to kill themselves, smoking generally takes many years to cause death, smoking itself generally doesn't cause death but rather leads to smoking-related health conditions, and not everyone who smokes will die from their smoking.
In other words, smoking is a huge health problem and should be addressed, but it doesn't really fall under the mantle of pro-life. We're focused more on the things that are intentional, direct affronts to human life.
I can't say I agree; this seems like mincing words to get around inconvenient facts. When you consider that the average smoker cuts at least a decade off of their lifespan due to those health problems you acknowledged, when you consider the harm that smokers can do to others, including reducing their lifespans - especially to the 'unborn' that pro-life people make their top priority, not to mention young children born to parents who smoke - seems to me that it fits the bill of an intentional, direct affront to human life. But that's just my opinion.
If you're for legalized abortion but can also be pro-life in the sense you value life, then I can be against legalized abortion but pro-choice in the sense that I still want to provide plenty of options. There are many choices that can be made that limit abortion or eliminate it altogether, and I'm all for having as many options as possible. Just not the option of abortion.
And this is why the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really aren't all that appropriate.
Birth control certainly does not. Making a rule that a woman who used birth control can get an elective abortion over those who did not suggests that it's the latter woman's fault she has an unplanned pregnancy, that the latter woman deserves her pregnancy for not taking the proper steps in advance. It's thinly veiled slut shaming.
That's why I think abortion needs to be made available regardless of whether she used (or had access to) birth control. I know you disagree, but consider the flaws in your own position. It puts the 'fault' for getting pregnant on the woman, even if she didn't want anything to do with it, and makes it effectively impossible for her to do anything but go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term. We've seen the consequences of this attitude - indeed, they exist even today, in this country, never mind the rest of the world. Women who are made to feel ashamed for having sex outside of marriage, women who are seen as sluts because of becoming pregnant while unwed, single mothers who are somehow seen as unfit parents because of it. In other countries, it's far worse; women who are considered - and who often accept being - second class citizens, who are held responsible for being raped and even made to marry their rapists, who's only value is seen in how many children they can produce, usually male children.
While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time. That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other. Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever. By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.
I realize rape is contentious, but it still doesn't change the equation for me. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but for me it comes down to the intrinsic value of human life overriding the terribleness of the rape.
The problem being that this attitude basically treats an entire category of human beings - women - as if the value of their lives is less because they can get pregnant. That they don't have the right to make decisions about something intimate to them like what they can do if they get pregnant. That devalues their lives even under the best of circumstances - it treats them as if they don't have the right to make such a decision for themselves.
Risk to health is a sticky one, because here you have risk of death by passive means vs. an intentional killing. I'd say the latter is worse but then again I can't ask everyone to be a hero. So I'm going to weasel out and say that after exhausting all other options (and it's very rare that some other option isn't at least available to try), it might be ok. Preferably killing via double effect if it's at all possible.
In my opinion, death is death. There is no real distinction between 'passive' and 'active' death - you're still just as dead either way. And sometimes death is necessary, even beneficial. I'm reminded of a book I read once, actually. It was about a woman who was dying from cancer, and who was given the power to cure herself of that cancer. But she decided not to, because she realized that if she put her own life first, then she would stand a very good chance of making other people - including her husband and children - miserable. She chose to die, but to die a meaningful death when she wanted to, over staying alive simply to stay alive as long as possible.
Then you shouldn't have left it that open. I prefer couches to love seats; if you give me room to stretch out, I'm going to stretch.
There is something to be said for exercising discretion.
That's done all the time, though. Laws forbidding stealing coerce people who don't believe in personal property to abide by the majority's ethical beliefs. Laws forcing a group or government to recognize a same sex marriage impose an ethical belief on that group/government. And so on.
The latter doesn't force anyone to get married to someone else of the same sex, though. Indeed, all it really does is ensure that same sex couples get the same rights as opposite sex couples already have. As for the former, what it actually does is keep someone who doesn't respect personal property from imposing that ethical standard on others. There's no rule saying that they can't give away their own personal property, or accept what others freely give them. They just can't take something that belongs to someone else because they want to, at least not without risking a much larger penalty.
I'd say it's not my (or the government's) business in most cases where the effect is limited to those making the decision. But on an issue centering around whether one human is allowed to kill another, I think it perfectly within the rights of the government to protect the latter person from being killed.
Under most circumstances, I agree. But abortion is not really one of them, because, to be blunt, I don't really consider a fetus to have the same rights and privileges as even a baby. I don't approve of abortion, but I'm not willing to impose my disapproval onto others, especially when there's other serious issues that simply don't get talked about in this abortion debate.
Donating gametes just concerns you, so I'm fine with it.
Even if it's donating gametes for the express purpose of fusing them with other gametes (and thus having a fertilized egg)? Though I suppose you'd call that in vitro fertilization, even though it really isn't.
A miscarriage is a natural death, so no.
In the sense that there's nothing 'wrong' with it, I agree. But someone dying in a car accident is hardly a natural death. Would you consider that wrong?