What should being Pro-Life also include?

[Philip]

A lot of people who are pro-life need to go deeper in their thinking, actions and responsibility than just being anti-abortion, to really see what else our pro-life sentiments might need to include - and this article addresses that: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... trust.html

[PaulSacramento]

To me, Pro-Life is simple: Life takes precedence.
What does that mean?
It means the taking of a life MUST be justified, it simply can not be done by "choice" or anything else.
It is also why I am against capital punishment ( one of a few reasons).

In direct terms:
The taking of a life is justified when saving another life, when putting an end to suffering, when no other option is possible and when it is a necessity.

I am NOT Pro-Choice because choice can not be a factor in whether a life should be taken.
The mere thought that CHOICE, the simple act of choosing to kill, is acceptable enough to justify killing, makes NO SENSE to me.

A pregnancy can be terminated of the life of the mother is in danger.
It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).
Simply choosing to kill is, quite simply, Wrong.

[RickD]

To me, Pro-Life is simple: Life takes precedence.
What does that mean?
It means the taking of a life MUST be justified, it simply can not be done by "choice" or anything else.
It is also why I am against capital punishment ( one of a few reasons).

In direct terms:
The taking of a life is justified when saving another life, when putting an end to suffering, when no other option is possible and when it is a necessity.

I am NOT Pro-Choice because choice can not be a factor in whether a life should be taken.
The mere thought that CHOICE, the simple act of choosing to kill, is acceptable enough to justify killing, makes NO SENSE to me.

A pregnancy can be terminated of the life of the mother is in danger.
It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).
Simply choosing to kill is, quite simply, Wrong.

Woman gets raped, punish the baby by killing him/her. Got it!

[Philip]

It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).

Absolutely NOT a Biblical stance. Women who get pregnant from rape are of the tiniest percentage of unwanted pregnancies - and there is ALWAYS an adoption option. And whom might I ask will determine whether their mental health is at risk - the person with a self motivation that likely has not one thing to do with their mental health? Abortion doctors willing to signt off on it? Inserting such a caveat into abortion law would simply keep the floodgates open for women using a supposed mental health threat to justify killing their unborn child. When we make abortion law to favor mostly rare cases - especially when that legalese opens the door to millions of totally unnecessary abortions - well, that is a horrible thing!

[PaulSacramento]

To me, Pro-Life is simple: Life takes precedence.
What does that mean?
It means the taking of a life MUST be justified, it simply can not be done by "choice" or anything else.
It is also why I am against capital punishment ( one of a few reasons).

In direct terms:
The taking of a life is justified when saving another life, when putting an end to suffering, when no other option is possible and when it is a necessity.

I am NOT Pro-Choice because choice can not be a factor in whether a life should be taken.
The mere thought that CHOICE, the simple act of choosing to kill, is acceptable enough to justify killing, makes NO SENSE to me.

A pregnancy can be terminated of the life of the mother is in danger.
It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).
Simply choosing to kill is, quite simply, Wrong.

Woman gets raped, punish the baby by killing him/her. Got it!

As someone that has seen, FIRST HAND, the psychological and emotional damage of rape, LONG TERM ( I know of one that commited suicide for example), I can say this:
If a woman can NOT handle the emotional and psychological damage of being raped AND becoming pregnant from that rape that, yes, abortion should be an option.
I don't AGREE with it, BUT I do understand and see it as a justification.

[PaulSacramento]

It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).

Absolutely NOT a Biblical stance. Women who get pregnant from rape are of the tiniest percentage of unwanted pregnancies - and there is ALWAYS an adoption option. And whom might I ask will determine whether their mental health is at risk - the person with a self motivation that likely has not one thing to do with their mental health? Abortion doctors willing to signt off on it? Inserting such a caveat into abortion law would simply keep the floodgates open for women using a supposed mental health threat to justify killing their unborn child. When we make abortion law to favor mostly rare cases - especially when that legalese opens the door to millions of totally unnecessary abortions - well, that is a horrible thing!

No, it isn't a biblical stance.

[RickD]

To me, Pro-Life is simple: Life takes precedence.
What does that mean?
It means the taking of a life MUST be justified, it simply can not be done by "choice" or anything else.
It is also why I am against capital punishment ( one of a few reasons).

In direct terms:
The taking of a life is justified when saving another life, when putting an end to suffering, when no other option is possible and when it is a necessity.

I am NOT Pro-Choice because choice can not be a factor in whether a life should be taken.
The mere thought that CHOICE, the simple act of choosing to kill, is acceptable enough to justify killing, makes NO SENSE to me.

A pregnancy can be terminated of the life of the mother is in danger.
It can be terminated if the mental health of the person is in danger ( not all women can carry the child of their rapist).
Simply choosing to kill is, quite simply, Wrong.

Woman gets raped, punish the baby by killing him/her. Got it!

As someone that has seen, FIRST HAND, the psychological and emotional damage of rape, LONG TERM ( I know of one that commited suicide for example), I can say this:
If a woman can NOT handle the emotional and psychological damage of being raped AND becoming pregnant from that rape that, yes, abortion should be an option.
I don't AGREE with it, BUT I do understand and see it as a justification.

It's simple. Either the fetus is a human being, or it isn't. If it is, it shouldn't be killed.

Many women or young girls can't handle the "psychological or emotional damage", of having an unwanted child. Do we punish the child by killing him/her in that instance too?

Look, I'm not discounting the feelings of someone who was raped. But again, why should the child be punished for the sin of the father?

[Nicki]

A lot of people who are pro-life need to go deeper in their thinking, actions and responsibility than just being anti-abortion, to really see what else our pro-life sentiments might need to include - and this article addresses that: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... trust.html

Exactly - it's not as if everything's necessarily going to be fine once an unplanned baby is saved from abortion. I have quite a problem with the hardline fiscal conservatives; I've only lived in countries with mainly government-funded healthcare and it's good. I can't see any Australian government ever changing it much, unless some far-right party gets in someday. It's the biggest use of tax dollars, but money well-spent in my opinion.

[PaulSacramento]

Guys, you don't have to agree with my position.
You asked, I stated.

It's simple. Either the fetus is a human being, or it isn't. If it is, it shouldn't be killed.

IF it was "that simple", we wouldn't be discussing it.

And I wouldn't use the term "fetus" since then you have to address WHEN it becomes a "fetus".