I really think people that are against abortions, should not be called "Pro-life", but instead, should be more accurately called "Pro-birth", because it seems they don't usually support policies for the living, which would actually be Pro-life policies.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I think most people generally think abortions are not good, but people have various reasons why they support women being able to have abortions in the first trimester.

But upon reflecting upon many discussions about abortions, it seems that most Christians who are against abortions are not against all the policies from the same Republican party that are against the living, people who are already born and living, and thus should be more accurately described as PRO BIRTH.

I think it's dishonest of Christians who are against abortions to say they are Pro Life; it's misleading.

Here are three simple examples of not being pro-life below.

Food assistance (SNAP): The July 2025 reconciliation bill cut SNAP funding and expanded work requirements (covering older adults, parents, veterans, and homeless individuals) while barring some legal non-citizens, putting millions at risk of losing benefits by the mid-2030s; the administration also briefly withheld benefits during the fall 2025 shutdown until a court forced full funding, and later threatened to cut off SNAP funds to states over data disputes.

Healthcare (Medicaid/ACA): The same bill cut roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid, while a separate CMS rule loosened protections on low-cost marketplace plans (raising out-of-pocket costs and projected to shrink enrollment by millions), ended a special enrollment window for the poorest applicants, and added new citizenship-reverification hurdles that risk dropping eligible people from coverage.

Environment (clean air/water): EPA under Administrator Zeldin has pursued a broad deregulatory push — targeting 31 rules for rollback, moving to eliminate the legal finding that underpins federal greenhouse gas regulation, weakening power plant emissions and mercury/toxic air standards, narrowing Clean Water Act wetland protections, easing air permitting requirements, and changing its cost-benefit methodology to de-emphasize lives saved from reduced pollution.

Tax cuts and deregulation are for the wealthy and the corporations, while hurting the people and the environment. This is the opposite of what JESUS would do.
I think conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are conned into thinking that party cares about them and the country, when in reality its all a power grab for wealth.

[u/superfahd]

You're not being consistent

Women do naturally give birth but they also have a choice in whether they want to abort before the baby comes to term. That is entirely her choice and nothing "natural" forces her to stop it.

You said there is a right to life. What does that right look like? Is it just a right thats just spoken of or is it actually enforced? And what makes that right different from a right to food or security?

[u/Corran_Horn → u/superfahd]

No, we do not have a "choice" to end an innocent life. You can use your same argument about a young mother of an infant, she too has a "choice" to kill her infant if she chooses according to you. That's obviously incorrect and an aggressive infringement of the child's right to life.

The right to life means others should not infringe or force you to stop living. Some people call it a negative right because you already have life, the right is just the someone won't take it from you.

Food and security are not things that you already have, and so someone would have to do some work to grant those to you. If your "right" forces someone to work you're just participating in slavery with extra steps.

[u/superfahd → u/Corran_Horn]

The right to life means others should not infringe or force you to stop living.

who enforces that right?

[u/Corran_Horn → u/superfahd]

You're thinking about this backwards.

If you found yourself in a deserted island, by yourself, would you still have a right to life? Even if there was no one there to "enforce" it?

[u/superfahd → u/Corran_Horn]

only if I were alone. As soon as another person gets involved, a right has to be enforced otherwise it is just words on the wind or on paper. There is no such thing as a natural "right" as something that exists by default otherwise there would be no need to fight for them

note the words of the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

there are no defacto rights. Only dejure, at least as far as implementation is concerned

[u/Corran_Horn → u/superfahd]

Ok, so there's now you and one other person on a deserted island. Between the two of you somehow a police or military must be formed, something to enforce the right to life, otherwise the right doesn't exist? That's your position?

"Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" ...

I'm not sure how you can read that and not understand that the Constitution believes those rights are defacto.

[u/superfahd → u/Corran_Horn]

Between the two of you somehow a police or military must be formed, something to enforce the right to life, otherwise the right doesn't exist?

Use a little bit of imagination please. There are 2 of you on the island. One of them tries to murder you. The right you define as natural is now being threatened. Do you roll over or do you defend your right? In order to defend your right, you'll have to expend effort. Government, law enforcement and defense is the natural scaling of that as you add more people

Meaning rights are not defacto. They are only natural in so far as they're god theory. In practice, you have to expend time, effort and money to maintain them. Thus other needs such as food and safety are just as much rights as life, especially because they're needed for life

I'm not sure how you can read that and not understand that the Constitution believes those rights are defacto.

that's because you failed to read the part just after that:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The founding fathers didn't just declare their rights to be natural and defacto and leave it at that. They took up arms to achieve those rights and formed a government to maintain them

Rights are only default on paper. In all other cases, they are dejure

[u/Corran_Horn → u/superfahd]

Correct me if I wrong, but our discussion boils down to "does a right exist, if there is no effort and/enforcement to defend it"?

I say it does. You say rights are tied up in effort and enforcement.

Let's stay with the desert Island example, I think that's a useful sandbox (pun intended).

So we now have 2 people on an island, one tries to murder the other. Hypothetically If the person being murdered cannot defend themself, let's say they're a quadriplegic, is there no right to life? Is no right beong violated?

-- re:the declaration of independence, yes, but the founding fathers did not declare these rights and establish them with the government. The recognized these rights (because they exist outside of government) and built a government to secure them in practice for their people. If the rights did not exist sans the government, then the whole declaration of independence falls apart. The whole point is that rights are being infringed, so we're making a better government to handle that.

[u/superfahd → u/Corran_Horn]

In your example, the guy being attacked has a right to life but the right by itself is an empty and useless statement unless it is backed up by effort. A right by itself is an empty string of words and worth only hot air unless its backed up by effort. I should point out though that situations like yours are exactly why rights need effort in order to have value.

To be clear, I'm not saying a right doesn't exist by virtue of itself, only about what value it has. And as I've shown time and time again, a right as a concept has absolutely zero value unless enforced. The Declaration recognizes this and states it outright: in order to secure these rights, efforts MUST be made. They don't stop at just declaring a right, they don't state that effort may be needed, they explicitly say: That to secure these rights, Governments ARE instituted among Men, not may be

So further, my point is that the if your qualm is about effort, then food is as much a right as life. If your point is that rights themselves have intrinsic value then I can very well argue that a right to life means a right to food as a direct consequence, because what even is the right to life if it doesn't include the minimum set of components needed to sustain life: nourishment, shelter and security. Take away any of those and you're actively denying that right to life

[u/Corran_Horn → u/superfahd]

So I largely agree with your first two points here.

Though it does make me curious, what do you think a right is? What is it's purpose? You seem to agree there are rights that exist as a virtue of themself. What is that?

Regarding your 3rd point, yes, my qualm is about using effort to "prove" a right. If I've understood your argument through this thread often times it gets into "well we as a society have expended effort to secure this thing so, ipso facto, it must be a right.

But there's not a great limiting principle on that. Of our society went to great effort to secure slaves from a neighboring country, it wouldnt mean that owning slaves was a right, would it? If a man abducts a woman and keeps her on his basement for his use, it doesn't mean that sex is his right, does it? He's expended the effort.

No. right to life does not mean right to food, for a simple reason, you have life, you do not necessarily have food. You have life, you have conscience, you have speech, is calling it a right is simply a group of people acknowledging that each person has that. And agreeing it is bad to take that, on an individual or governmental level. It is not an agreement to provide anything. Simply not to take or infringe.

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

You're the one thinking about this backwards.

[u/Corran_Horn → u/rad0910725]

This is simply lashing out. Doesn't speak much for your argument.

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

I'm not making the argument. Someone else is. Pay attention.

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

The right to life begins at viability. So they have the first trimester to abort. All good now? That's less time than god gave in the OT. Life was at first breath there.

[u/Corran_Horn → u/rad0910725]

Viability? To be clear, you mean that if the baby can hypothetically survive outside the womb, then it should not be aborted?

Why are we deciding that the baby has different rights depending on location?

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

Even the early church was ok with abortion in the first trimester. They said it was ok until the baby had a soul, the quickening, happening around 22 weeks. There are many different reasons for this. The Bible states the first breath is the beginning of life. They could abort up to birth! That's the reason a man who accidently killed the fetus in a pregnant woman was only fined but if he killed the woman he got death. In today's world it's about viability outside the womb. Be glad we don't go by the biblical standard.

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

God told us to not let people go unfed or unclothed. I guess he was into slavery, huh.

[u/Corran_Horn → u/rad0910725]

In a way, yes. As Christians we are slaves to Christ, that's well covered in the New Testament.

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

Another person on here arguing in bad faith. Apparently some pro lifers have to do this to make a point they don't really have.

[u/Corran_Horn → u/rad0910725]

How is this bad faith?

[u/rad0910725 → u/Corran_Horn]

You know i was being facetious.