"Pro-life" means you're against murder. Can we keep that simple premise in mind?
I started thinking about this yesterday when I stumbled across this post at Vox Nova that basically says water boarding and sticking scissors in the back of a baby's head are both against pro-life principles. I respect Vox Nova and I don't condone torture, but there's a difference between water boarding a suspected terrorist and scissoring a baby. Heck, there's a difference between water boarding a baby and scissoring a baby. The difference is this: One kills, the other doesn't (water boarding can kill, but that's not "the norm").
Again, I'm not saying water boarding isn't bad. What I am saying is that there are all sorts of things out there that hurt, suck, and otherwise adversely affect the quality of life, but that doesn't mean a failure to resist them means you're not pro-life. If the pro-life slogan is applied to anything that adversely affects the quality of life, it will become meaningless.
All of the following sentences are plausible "pro-life" statements, but the result of such ubiquitous use is a hopeless dilution ("water boarding"?) of the term:
"I support poverty-relief programs because I'm pro-life. Poverty hurts a person's quality of life."
"I'm against drugs because I'm pro-life and drugs kill."
"I oppose child abuse because I'm pro-life and abuse ruins a person's life."
"I hate communists because I'm pro-life and Stalin killed millions."
"I tithe because I'm pro-life and the Church helps people."
"I support PETA because I'm pro-life" (I've actually heard this one).
"I support affordable toilet paper for all people because I'm pro-life, and it's hard to live a purposeful life if you're chafed."
All these things might be supported for various reasons, but not on grounds that you're "pro-life." I simply don't think the term is broad enough to encompass every good thing under the sun and to condemn every bad thing. If Catholics want to wreck a slogan by making it so elastic that it loses all elasticity (a rubber band that is continuously stretched), that's a shame. I think it's a good slogan and can do a lot of good. But if we abuse it, we'll need to find something else. Maybe "anti-choice"?
(Note: If you turn the comments box into a "pro" and "con" discussion of torture, you're missing my point. This is a vocabulary issue, not a political issue. Long-time readers know I almost take it personally when language is abused.)
__________
Catholic World News picks up on the media's inane treatment of the "new" list of sins, though it doesn't mention that the media doesn't know the difference between "deadly" and "mortal" sins.
To my non-Catholic readers and readers educated in Catholic parochial schools in the 1970s and 1980s: The "deadly sins" are more like dispositions, attitudes that lead us to sin. "Mortal sins" are actual sins that, if not properly repented of, land a person in Hell (upon death, not after Hillary becomes president).
One of my non-Catholic readers asked me that question. I should've explained it here yesterday.
__________
Put me in the poor house: After nearly two decades of low food inflation, prices for staples such as bread, milk, eggs, and flour are rising sharply, surging in the past year at double-digit rates, according to the Labor Department. Milk prices, for example, increased 26 percent over the year. Egg prices jumped 40 percent. As I mentioned earlier, my family drinks over 400 gallons of milk a year. I think I'm going to get them to drink beer. Good enough for kids in Chaucer's England, good enough for kids in my house.
Actually, I'm against this kind of inflation because I'm pro-life. If we can't buy food economically, children might not get the kind of nutrition they need. This has nothing to do with my own beliefs and economic needs (to wit, an extra $250 a year--over $1,500 total--in milk cost). It's an altruistic pro-life issue.
__________
Parents of two four-year-old boys in New York are suing school officials after their sons were allegedly handcuffed for refusing to take a nap. I hope they win their lawsuit. The school officials are obviously not pro-life.
