Being pro-life has little to do with Christian doctrine, because a pro-life stance is never…
Benjamin T. Awesome

Usually, I agree with Ben, but not always. My concern here is the oversimplification, and the dismissal.

Pro-Abortion stances can encompass a “right” for the women all the up to a point where delivery of the fetus/baby is the next natural step. Moreover, pro-choice at the furthest level denies that the fetus baby is ever a human life. At some point, that fetus becomes a baby, and because science keeps on expanding the point at which that baby is medically viable, making the sweeping generalization that there is no logic or rational basis for a pro-life stance is problematic, at best.

Personally, I have no interest in defunding PP, not of overturning Roe v. Wade, and I consider myself a Catholic, a member of an organization that is pretty consistent on the subject of abortion. Nevertheless, I can simultaneously accept the separation of church and state, which says that I shouldn’t impose my religious views on others.

At some point, we have laws that protect animals from abuse and from being killed. I think it is theologically supportable to contend that at some point during gestation, the viable fetus ought to have as much right to legal protection as a cat, a puppy, or a horse — or any of the other animals that would be protected from abuse under the law.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.