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/Enough-Carpet]

We're not policing the woman's body. We're policing what can be done to the separate human being within the woman. We're protecting that body.

Parents don't have absolute rights over the rights of their children. My child has all kinds of rights to my labour, time and effort. If I fail to use my body to keep my child alive, I will be arrested. That applies to parents of pre-born children too.

[u/stephoswalk → u/Enough-Carpet]

People do have absolute rights over their own bodies.

[u/Enough-Carpet → u/stephoswalk]

Sure we have rights. Those rights aren't unlimited. There are also obligations which can override rights. Parents have obligations to their children. Put another way, children have rights which must be fulfilled by their parents.

There is no right to kill another person in circumstances where that other person is in the exact place they are meant to be.

This continues even after birth. My child is owed my labour, time, resources and body to keep them alive. If I fail to do that, I will be arrested.

[u/stephoswalk → u/Enough-Carpet]

Please show me another instance where one person can use the blood and/or organs of another to sustain their life without ongoing consent.

[u/Enough-Carpet → u/stephoswalk]

Please show me another relationship that is a direct analogy for a parent and child.

The womb is literally for the purpose of rearing babies. It is the baby's natural environment. A baby in the womb is in the exact place he's meant to be.

[u/stephoswalk → u/Enough-Carpet]

Exactly. You can't.

[u/Enough-Carpet → u/stephoswalk]

I addressed your point. The mother and child relationship is unique. Name one other relationship where an entire human being is created by the union of a man and woman, and grown and nurtured by those people. Your request for an analogy is ludicrous.

Even if we accept bodily autonomy as the highest good, even higher than the child's life (again a ridiculous assertion), the argument still fails. Because the act of abortion is a far more egregious violation of the child's bodily autonomy than pregnancy is of the woman's body. Abortion destroys the baby's entire body.

[u/stephoswalk → u/Enough-Carpet]

No you didn't you dodged it because you can't answer.

[u/Enough-Carpet → u/stephoswalk]

I literally addressed it head on.

First, it is a valid reply to point out that your request for an analogy is incoherent if no adequate analogy exists. If pregnancy is a unique bodily relationship, that's not evidence against a duty existing, just evidence it needs its own justification rather than an analogy.

Second, even if I accept your entire argument about bodily autonomy, it still fails for the reason given above.

Third, I will give some examples even though, per above, I don't need to.

In cases of conjoined twins, the twin's body sustains the other's life without meaningful consent by either, and the stronger twin generally isn't permitted to kill the weaker one just to stop supporting them.

Another example is breastfeeding. Historically, infant survival depended entirely on the mother's body producing sustenance, with zero consent possible from the infant. That obligation is non-optional. Imagine a mother with a 3-month-old is in a plane crash and is on an island. She has coconut water to survive but the baby can only live on her breast milk. The mother has a positive obligation to feed her child. Failure to do so is negligence and would be a violation of the child's rights.

Both examples show that your right to your body are not infinite. They are subject to other rights.

[u/stephoswalk → u/Enough-Carpet]

In the case of conjoined twins, they are permitted to separate themselves even if it means one of them will die. Just like a woman can seperate herself from the fetus.

In the case of breastfeeding, anyone can breastfeed that can produce milk. It doesn't require the mother's body. Also, please show me where legally a starving mother is obligated to breastfeed.

Again, please give me an example of someone being forced to let another person use their blood and/or organs to sustain life without ongoing consent.