Sep 8, 2008

We need a more precise concept than "Respect Life"

If you are like me, you are proud of the work that the good people in parish and diocesan and archdiocesan Respect Life committees do.

But is "Respect Life" really the best name those committees could have?

I suggest "Save Lives" instead.

That is because the word "life," in current pro-life usage, can be and often is impersonal: It does not refer to an actual individual person.

In fact, the word "life" is even unwittingly depersonalizing. People say, "We've got to protect unborn life." "We've got to protect life in the womb."

It should be, "unborn babies," not "unborn life." It should be "babies in the womb," not "life in the womb."

A wise pro-life lady once pointed out to me that we pro-lifers should always put our focus on the babies -- they are the central characters, the object of our concern, in right to life.

After all, when you go to a ballgame at Dodger Stadium or Anaheim and you see the crowd, do you say, "Look at all that life?" No. You say, "Look at all those people."

We must never forget that every preborn baby is an individual and a person, not a category or a concept such as "life."

Every preborn baby is also deserving of being saved, not just "respected" in the abstract. And the same is true of everyone who needs protecting and saving, such as euthanasia-targeted elderly, infirm, or handicapped people.

So, "Save Lives" is a more precise concept than "Respect Life." What do you think?


Blogger Joe of St. Thérèse said...

Save lives sounds good to me,

12:32 AM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Joe,

Thanks! God bless --

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Elaine Suhre said...

How about Save Lives, unborn and born. Save Lives sounds ambiguous.

2:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter