I'm pretty sure that I mentioned earlier that there are people who identify as "pro-life" but do not apply it to all life issues. I also never claimed that every organization has the same goals. I am most familiar with the Catholic pro-life stance, which is why I cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
I went back several posts to get some additional context, and so I caught that. However, your original response to me on this, which was two words and a link to the USCCB website, was not very helpful. In fact, it added to the appearance of being disingenuous.
If you think that abortion is the only face of the pro-life movement, then you must not be paying attention. The pro-life movement has spoken up on several life issues over the past several years. When embryonic stem cell research and cloning became realities, pro-lifers spoke up. During the Terry Schiavo controversy, pro-life activists (along with disability rights activists) spoke up. When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon pro-life groups responded. Yes, abortion is certainly the biggest issue pro-life movements face due to its scope, but it's not the only issue the movements address.
Granted, but that's tangential to the point I'm trying to get at. Are you willing to acknowledge the point that referring to a movement as pro-life (or pro-choice, for that matter) lends itself to calling opponents of that movement anti-life (or anti-choice)? In other words, it has a strong propaganda effect, which has nothing to do with the actual issues. More to the point, it doesn't really assist in understanding things either. You may define "pro-life" as being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, and so on, but those are all things you are against. They don't define what pro-life actually means to you - or to anyone else, for that matter.
I explicitly stated the entire pro-life movement wasn't like that, so perhaps you should read my posts before calling them dishonest.
I can't help it if your posts give the appearance of dishonesty or disingenuousness to me. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you're the one writing the posts. If people are taking it a way other than how you intended it, then perhaps you might want to spend some time thinking about why that might be instead of merely dismissing it as my (or Azdgari's) problem.
In other words, this claim of yours that American pro-life groups only focus on abortion is a load of garbage
Now who needs to go back and read posts? I said that the anti-abortion movement in America calls itself pro-life, even though it's specifically about abortions. Even you admitted that abortion was the biggest issue facing pro-life groups. Perhaps you should spend some time considering just how much - or how little - emphasis those groups actually give to anything besides abortions, instead of simply reading their mission statements. For example, check how much funding those groups put towards abortion stuff, as opposed to the other issues you mentioned.
I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.
This may come as a shock to you, but I consider myself pro-life as well as being pro-choice - and more to the point, not pro-abortion. That's because life isn't really about making sure something that's alive stays alive as long as possible, whatever they think about it, or making sure that if a woman gets pregnant, that she should give birth whatever she thinks about it.
Is it ethical to try to keep someone who's lived a long life alive when their body starts to fail, whatever they want? Is it ethical to make a woman go through the trauma of childbirth just because she got pregnant, when she was using birth control? You might have different answers than I do on those questions, but one thing's for sure - it isn't ethical to try to force others to abide by what you want, or to coerce them into doing it (say, through the law).
I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are actually pretty good descriptors of each side's position on the issue, which IMO is important because the two sides are arguing two fundamentally different things. "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are rather poor descriptors, by contrast, because the pro-abortion camp is not motivated against life and the anti-abortion camp is not motivated against choice.
That last sentence of yours is exactly why calling one side pro-choice and the other pro-life doesn't really work. I think you'll find that there's a surprising amount of overlap between the two sides once you get past the true believers.