Saturday, January 29, 2011

Has the Term 'Pro-Life' Become Passe?

Leo Hunt poses the question (entire article posted here), "Is it time to dump the term 'pro-life'?"  First, Leo thinks that the pro-life movement is failing to win hearts and minds.  I disagree.  There is evidence to the contrary.  I know that "contraception," in vitro fertilization, and experimentation that kills human embryos is the devaluing of human life and that it is loosely connected to abortion but I don't think that one can conclude legitimately that due to the ascent of these new challenges to the pro-life movement that pro-lifers are losing the abortion argument or even the pro-life argument.  Since the pro-life movement has mainly been focused on the abortion issue for the past 38 years and not the other aforementioned newer threats to life I believe in the area of abortion that the pro-life movement is in fact winning hearts and minds.  It has taken much time for the tide to turn and polls to show that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life.  It was only a little over 6 months ago that 47% of citizens stated in a poll that they were pro-life.  That is a 3% jump in just the past 7 or 8 months. Personally, I think that is pretty amazing!

What if some of those polled who claim to be "pro-life" believe that it is morally acceptable to have an abortion in cases of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother?  They may not be 100% pro-life but I wonder what percentage of those who consider themselves to be "pro-life" were "pro-choice" under all circumstances before today?  I say Thank God for small miracles.  I believe that over time that those citizens can be talked to and persuaded to follow additional pro-life principles.  It sounds like Leo is letting pessimism takeover and seems like he is writing off small miracles.  Conversion can come in stages or in little spurts. We need to keep praying for these people to continue their pro-life conversion process.

Since Leo thinks that defenders of preborn human children are failing he asks 'Could part of the problem be with the very phrase "pro-life"?'  Should the term "pro-life" be refined to solely refer to protecting vulnerable unborn babies instead of the term in a broad manner additionally referring to being anti-war and anti-death penalty along with protecting unborn babies?  Personally, I think this is yet another term that has been hijacked by the liberals, specifically liberal Catholics, and perverted in order to assuage their guilt when they vote for pro-abort democratic politicians.  They want to relativize in their own minds that their politician is partly pro-life by perverting the term to mean something which it really doesn't.  Leo has suggested "pro-life" change to either pro-personhood, pro-human child, or pro-child. While I don't think that we are losing the pro-life argument, and even if I did I most certainly wouldn't conclude the cause of our losing the battle was due to the term "pro-life" I do think that it might be a good idea to change the term to specifically focus on the unborn child.  I believe the name change could help prevent the catholic Left from using the pro-life cover story in order to assuage their guilty conscience to legitimize the fact that they voted for pro-abortion or anti-child democratic politicians.

1 comment:

Left-footer said...

I tend to use the terms 'anti-abortion' and anti-euthanasia.

Pro-aborters and pro-euthanasers would say they were 'pro-life', but would simper on about the 'quality' of life, as though they were discussing furniture or clothing.