The distortion of “pro-life” versus “pro-choice”

29
Oct
2012
October 29, 2012

The venerable Tom Friedman:

In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.” [...]

The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.

Hear, hear.

Tags: , , , ,


 

1 reply
  1. MK says:

    Wow that was convoluted.

    Meanwhile, you don’t get to call yourself ‘progressive’ if your life’s work is to revert to a 1960s idea of what a state should look like.

Comments are closed.

This content is © 2004 - 2013 Liam Getreu, unless otherwise stated. Please contact me if you want to distribute any posts. View this site's privacy policy.