Are you "PRO LIFE" or "PRO BIRTH" at any and all costs, even if it puts the mother and/or baby at risk?

[legalboxers]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-appeals-abortion-mothers-life-texas_n_6594bd16e4b0f27b6e35b69b
In Texas Case, Federal Appeals Panel Says Emergency Care Abortions Not Required By 1986 Law

The Biden administration cannot use a 1986 emergency care law to require doctors in Texas hospitals to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

It’s one of numerous cases involving abortion restrictions that have played out in state and federal courts after the U. S. Supreme Court ended abortion rights in 2022. The administration issued guidance that year saying hospitals “must” provide abortion services if there’s a risk to the mother’s life, citing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment for anyone who arrives at the emergency room.

Texas state courts have also brought separate cases about when abortion must be allowed there, despite bans on it under most circumstances. The Texas Supreme Court ruled last month against a woman who asked for permission to abort a fetus with a fatal diagnosis. The same court heard arguments in November on behalf of women who were denied abortions despite serious risks to their health if they continued their pregnancies; the justices have not ruled on that case.
Abortion opponents have challenged the emergency care law guidance in multiple jurisdictions. In Texas, the state joined abortion opponents in a lawsuit to stop the guidance from taking effect and won at the district court level. The Biden administration appealed to the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But the appeal was rejected in Tuesday’s ruling by a unanimous three-judge panel.

Pro Life

Pro Birth

Pro Guns (wondering which scholar from T. U. will pick this)

[nightdrot]

The Pro-Life/Pro-Birth distinction is vague. In general, pro-life means except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. This falls into gray areas as technology makes the line of viability somewhat wavy, but the general principle remains.

The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.

A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.

We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.

Indeed, it being problematic as both a moral and scientific question. If a baby is not human from the moment of conception, it then becomes necessary to define at exactly what precise instant it becomes human. In furtherance of which it must be explained just what is the difference, biological and moral, one second before that instant and one second after - particularly since any error in that estimate means either that the society murders any child before after that instant and is left to shrug in ethical indifference that it has done so.

This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.

Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.

[Lionman95]

What´s the difference of pro life and pro birth? Wasn´t different generally pro life and pro choice? Though I don´t like the premise of the general difference I don´t see much reason to set a difference of pro life and pro birth.