There are a lot of people who need help in the world. Some suffer from disease or disability. Others are stricken by poverty.
Worse yet, it is sometimes pregnant mothers who are in these very situations.
Because of this, it is sometimes asked, “Shouldn’t we help those that are suffering before we bring more people into the world?
The first answer to this is that the lives of the preborn are already in existence and, therefore, are every bit as deserving of protection as anyone else.
However, this is definitely not to say that those who are pro-life are only concerned with the lives of the preborn.
To the contrary, there are actually many ways in which those who are pro-life help those who are facing other types of challenges.
For example, instead of having to turn to places that support abortion as an easy solution, many of those who are pro-life have tirelessly worked to establish crisis pregnancy centers for women in need.
CPCs can provide invaluable help to women who are in even the toughest of situations.
They offer free prenatal care and a place where the women will not be judged for their decisions.
The mothers can also be offered help from different organizations that provide housing and food in their local area.
This is just one more example of how those who are pro-life actually value all life, not just the lives of the preborn.
—————-
Image from blog.viewpointr.com
Letting millions starve in third world countries so that a few rich guys can have the “freedom” to keep millions or billions of dollars in their bank accounts…..is that “PRO-LIFE”????? Sounds more like conservative hypocrisy to me. Does God think that the indulgence of 1 rich guy is more important than the LIVES of thousands of poor people?
I do not see your point regarding the content of this post. In fact, from what I can see, you did not even address the issue being presented. How is it that you label those who are “pro-life” as advocating the indulgences of the rich at the expense of those who are in need? As a pro-life advocate myself, this is the first time that I have seen anything like what you posted here. And to be completely honest, I find your comment to be rather irrelevant, because it fails to deal with the real issue: what is the unborn?
This debate is not about rich and poor people, it is about the moral status of the unborn human being. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself if you would oppose the pro-lifers if they were trying to protect the lives of 2 year olds. Clearly, anyone advocating a “pro-choice” position in that situation (having the choice to kill a 2 year old) would be morally wrong… and in need of help, no doubt! But what is the difference between the position of those protecting the ones that are born (the 2 year olds) and the position of protencting those that are not (the unborn)? The only difference is in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. None of these differences gives us a good reason to be able to kill the unborn and not the 2 year old.
I hope this helps you understand the pro-life position in a clearer sense.
Sincerely,