What does being "Pro-Life" really mean?

Evangelical Christians and Right To Life (RTL) groups are dedicated voters who look for "Pro-Life" candidates to support. 

Unfortunately, the political litmas test for "Pro-Life" usually conceptualizes a political position where abortion is the center of the debate. This one minded approach to voting has led to the Republican party being controlled by right wing zealots who are not purely "Pro-Life", at all. Rather, oftentimes, they're single minded hypocrites. Many Pro-Life stances are "anti-life".

Abortion notwithstanding, here is my list of "Pro-life" issues:

John Wesley (1703-1791) "Do all the good you can...."

1.  Supporting the lives of mothers and children by providing universal health  care and with good nutrition supported by programs like "Women Infants and Children" or "WIC".

2.  Opposing the sale of military style assault weapons and ammunition (or tax it out of affordability) that are killing thousands of young people who're either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or being victimized due to their race or sexual orientation. It makes no sense to be "Pro-life" but also "Pro-Assault Weapons". It's a classic oxymoron.

3.  Opposition to the death penalty is a "Pro-Life" position. Although many Evangelicals and RTL supporters are, in fact, opposed to the death penalty, they don't petition and publicly demonstrate to support this decididly wrong criminal justice sentance.

4.  Being pro-life means providing health care and income assistance for the poor, the frail, the elderly, the disabled, immigrants and veterans. Instead, Evangelicals and RTL groups are often the same people who oppose government expenditures for public assistance programs.

Pro-Life positions are humanitarian concepts, meaning they should be inclusive of all quality of life conditions, including the protection of the life of the unborn. 

In other words, being Pro-Life is reflective in the teachings of John Wesley: "“Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.”

As a matter of fact, HillaryClinton is a Christian Methodist who believes in and extols the John Wesley humanitarian mantra. Indeed, Secretary Clinton is truely a "Pro-Life" presidential candidate. Obviously, she's a candidate the Pro-Life Evangelical and RTL voters can be proud to support.

Belgian children are now the victims of the slippery slope predicted by the right to life advocates

Belgium lawmakers vote for children's right to die law. This is horrible because children are frequently the beneficiaries of spontaneous remissions. Of course, some children have difficult developmental difficulties from which they may never recover. Nevertheless, children should be the recipients of boundless hope. Anyone who puts out the option of death to a child for any reason has, truly, lost their own humanity. 

There's absolutely no reason, whatsoever, under any circumstances, to offer euthanasia as an end of life option for a child. Children are incapable of making these decisions for themselves; therefore no one should be authorized to make these life ending decisions on their behalf, regardless of the intention. Never. 

Although evidence of loss of brain function over an extended period of time can require the removal of life support, this decision should not be  interpreted as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the intentional intervention at the end of life to bring about an unnatural and premature death. Children deserve hope, not death.

As a professional registered nurse, I've seen families bond and medical providers rally to save the lives of children. It's unethical to put families and medical care givers in a position of advocating for the right to die for children. Moreover, it's morally unconscionable to permit euthanasia for children, because they have a strong capacity to recover from illness and injury. Children often outlive their terminal illness diagnosis. 

How many times do we read about children who are the victims of drowning being revived with no apparent harm? This is particularly evident when children are the victims of hypothermia. Moreover, children respond favorably to life saving interventions like transplants and immune therapies to treat malignancies.

Nevertheless, you must listen to this. 

I've heard parents tell me how having a mentally ill child is more difficult to deal with than terminal illness.

Do blog readers need to read the above again?  

Parents have told me, as a nurse, how a mentally ill child is more difficult to deal with than terminal illness.

Treating children with mental illnesses are expensive and recoveries are rare.  

Treating children with life threatening illness like cancer or metabolic diseases can be successfully accomplished. Remissions are common.

Children, especially those in Belgium, are now the victims of the slippery slope predicted by the zealous right-to-life advocates. There's dwindling hope for anyone with terminal illnesses to live longer lives, if people are considering euthanasia for children.  

A society that voluntarily authorizes children to euthanize will also put at risk the end of life care for everyone else.  

Belgium has now validated the ugly outcome of the "slippery slope" argument. This euthanasia decision by Belgium lawmakers is unethical and it puts all people with terminal illnesses at risk for having caregivers abandon hope for remissions or extended life options - especially those with mental illnesses.

As a nurse, I firmly believe the above to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. My opinion is validated from experience.