Do pro-lifers have an obligation to care for pregnant women and the lives of those after they born?

[ToeInTheWater]

This does not mean the the two concepts necessarily preclude each other, but it seems that there is a negative correlation between the two; conservative Catholics tend to emphasize the sanctity of life while discounting concern for others welfare, while liberal Catholics tend to emphasize the welfare of the poor while putting less attention on life issues.

It seems to be a common stereotype among liberals that conservatives are greedy, selfish, and just don’t care about people who aren’t as well off as they are. (To the extent that I remember a recent post by a member who was concerned he’d have to give up all his conservative political beliefs in order to be a good Catholic!) Now, I think I’m rather middle-of-the-road politically (except on life issues). So, I wouldn’t deny that there are conservatives who really do have a social Darwinist, “tough luck, you’re on your own” attitude toward the poor, unemployed, etc. However, the fallacy here is that the only legitimate way to show “concern for others welfare” is to support government welfare and other government programs.

You will note that I have highlighted the concept of subsidiarity in all the cases above. By this I mean that the most immediate societal unit possible has the obligation to provide the support. This would mean, in order, the individual, the immediate family, the extended family, the neighborhood, the parish, the community, the surrounding communities, and so on. The only role for the State would be if all of the intermediate communities are so overloaded as to be unable to provide the necessary support (note I said unable…not unwilling).

I believe this is what Catholic social justice is really supposed to be about. Of course, there is still room for a lot of debate on when exactly one can say a particular community is “overloaded”.

When it comes to the actual topic of pro-lifers being somehow hypocritical, I have heard this charge before. Well, one counter is that actually, many pro-life organizations do provide support, and as Catholic Charities is one of, if not the, largest charities in the world, I don’t think the authentic Catholic position is hypocritical at all. (BTW, you don’t even have to be Catholic to get help from Catholic Charities!)

Also, I recall a quote from JPII to the effect that without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. So, life issues still trump economic issues because if you’re dead, then the whole question of whether you are provided for is moot. If someone could get me the exact quote I’d appreciate it.

ETA: Also, as the OP has pointed out the more pragmatic, selfish aspects of the abolitionism as a political movement, I should also point out that those who support abortion, euthanasia, etc. don’t always have noble motives either, but are motivated at least in part to get rid of those they see as posing an economic burden. And where abortion is concerned, there is an actual money-making industry involved, too.

 

[markomalley]

It seems to be a common stereotype among liberals that conservatives are greedy, selfish, and just don’t care about people who aren’t as well off as they are. (To the extent that I remember a recent post by a member who was concerned he’d have to give up all his conservative political beliefs in order to be a good Catholic!) Now, I think I’m rather middle-of-the-road politically (except on life issues). So, I wouldn’t deny that there are conservatives who really do have a social Darwinist, “tough luck, you’re on your own” attitude toward the poor, unemployed, etc. However, the fallacy here is that the only legitimate way to show “concern for others welfare” is to support government welfare and other government programs.

The Ayn Rand Objectivist model of conservatism is fairly Darwinist in its outlook.

But more distrubing to me is the genocidal model of those advocates of the social assistance state. They first wish to create an utterly dependent class of individuals, then, where possible, segregate them from society in their own ghettos (read that Section VIII housing and projects), and then finally, commit genocide through advocacy of eugenic policies of government-funded contraception and abortion. I realize that there are very few who recognize this for what it is and who support those types of policies with the best of intentions, but they are what they are.

Also, I recall a quote from JPII to the effect that without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. So, life issues still trump economic issues because if you’re dead, then the whole question of whether you are provided for is moot. If someone could get me the exact quote I’d appreciate it.

The Holy See insistently proclaims that the first and most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life, and that when this right is denied all other rights are threatened.

- Address by the Holy Father to the Ambassador of New Zealand, May 25, 2000.
​

I’m sure there are other instances, but that’s what I found most quickly.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Personally, I never have been enamored with the pro-life position because I find it too short-sighted. I do not see how the pro-life position actually solves any problems after the babies are born. What if they would be born in poverty and the mother has no means for taking care of the child? Do pro-lifers have a more obligation to be concerned with the welfare of children after they are born (in addition to before they are born)?

The long standing tradition of the Church, from what I understand, is that human life is sacred “from conception to natural death,” but the “pro-life movement,” because of its shotgun marriage to an ideology that worships money as its god, only holds that human life is sacred “from conception to birth and from diagnosis to agonizing natural death…all points in between, not our problem.”

 

[Light1111]

Personally, I never have been enamored with the pro-life position because I find it too short-sighted. I do not see how the pro-life position actually solves any problems after the babies are born. What if they would be born in poverty and the mother has no means for taking care of the child? Do pro-lifers have a more obligation to be concerned with the welfare of children after they are born (in addition to before they are born)?

Your question reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw during the 1988 election:
“George Bush, when are you available for baby sitting?”

Your question does bring up that issue . . .but it’s heartening to read the responders’ posts, who mention that several pro-life groups do assist the mother after she has given birth. It’s great to know!

 

[Black_Rose]

When it comes to the actual topic of pro-lifers being somehow hypocritical, I have heard this charge before. Well, one counter is that actually, many pro-life organizations do provide support, and as Catholic Charities is one of, if not the, largest charities in the world, I don’t think the authentic Catholic position is hypocritical at all. (BTW, you don’t even have to be Catholic to get help from Catholic Charities!)

The existence of Catholic Charities is compatible with my hypothesis of an inverse correlation of concern for people’s welfare and fervency in pro-life activism (maybe I should have added among religious people). Perhaps, the workers of Catholic Charities are people who concern more able the welfare of the people instead of the sanctity of life.

In support of my observation:

Ironically, few environments are less tolerant of conservatives and their ideas than the nonprofit world. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in October of 2008 that employees of major charities favored Democrats over Republicans in their private political contributions by a margin of 82% to 18%. Among the employees of major foundations, the difference was an astounding 98% to 2%.

online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

And this relationship might hold true for the workers of Catholic Charities:

It is correct that the “authentically Catholic position” is not hypocritically at all, but most Catholics do not embrace an “authentically Catholic position”.

 

[jilly4ski]

It is correct that the “authentically Catholic position” is not hypocritically at all, but most Catholics do not embrace an “authentically Catholic position”.

And you know this how?

It has been addressed several times that Catholic prolife institutions do indeed offer help to women while they are pregnant and after the baby is born. (at my college’s prolife group we threw a baby shower for some women living in a half way house and all pitched in money to get things for the babies). Catholic charities are (besides the government) are the main charities that help women with small children, (Planned Parenthood sure doesn’t help women who don’t choose abortion). Not only that, but does having other charities and help matter if you are dead?

 

[michaeljason]

In my area, we have the Abba Care Pregnancy Center, a wonderful organization devoted to helping expectant & new mothers receive care, clothing, counseling, food, training and help with all other sorts of needs. They’re also starting to add classes and counseling for new and expecting fathers, encouraging them to embrace their role.

It’s a Christian ministry, and it has brought together Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals, non-denominationals, and all other types of Christians to work to help women who are considering abortion realize that there is a better alternative, and people who genuinely care about them and their child.

 

[estesbob]

Personally, I never have been enamored with the pro-life position because I find it too short-sighted. I do not see how the pro-life position actually solves any problems after the babies are born. What if they would be born in poverty and the mother has no means for taking care of the child? Do pro-lifers have a more obligation to be concerned with the welfare of children after they are born (in addition to before they are born)?

I oppose the death Penalty-does that mean I have an obligation to support convicted murderers?

Seriously you apoear to believe that abortion is okay becuase if the children were born they could be a burden on society. Which begs the question-what other social issues do you think killing the potential recipients is the solution for?

 

[lelhajj]

Living in the usa, which is a developed country and thinking twice about if we have an obligation to care for the poor and pregnant women, i wonder how do those poor mothers from undeveloped countries can still care and love their children? We should never promote abortion, which is the killing of a human life, it is our duty as catholics not to do so. We are fortunate to live in such a society and we should be more giving. The be born poor or to be born without a father or mother to take care of them, it is not something bad. Brilliant people had been born from such relationships. We can not decide who is worthy to let him/her live or to take care for.
In other words: are we good catholics or are we not?
It is not an obligation to be generous, but, doesn’t it feel good to give?
In the USA they are a lot of very rich people who has given most of their fortunes for good causes and are happy living with less than with more. One of them is Bill Gates, another one is Bloomberg, Ted Turner, etc.
Let’s remember that real happiness comes from the inside not from materialistic things, therefore,why us, being in a privileged group can not be more giving? We are not taking our fortunes to the grave, the only thing we are taking is our good actions we did when we were living on this earth.
Sorry, i did not mean to to reproach anything to anybody, but, it is good to meditate about our blessings and about how we can share them.
Didn’t Jesus said something like: it is easier for the lesser ones to enter the kingdom of heaven than the rich ones. Isn’t that true? why? because the more we have, the more we want. We are never satisfied about how much we have.

 

[Corki]

One point is that the moral culpability of women who choose abortion is diminished when the child does not have excellent prospects for living a good life.

But what I wanted to point out was that pro-life advocates generally have a lack of concern for the people who are born. In other words, they do not focus enough on the quality of life of people after they are born. This is definitely not universally true as it does not apply to all pro-life people, but it seems to be a somewhat accurate stereotype. It seems that embracing the moral notion of the sanctity of life is detached from a concern of the welfare of children and grown adults. This does not mean the the two concepts necessarily preclude each other, but it seems that there is a negative correlation between the two; conservative Catholics tend to emphasize the sanctity of life while discounting concern for others welfare, while liberal Catholics tend to emphasize the welfare of the poor while putting less attention on life issues.

That’s a generality not based in reality. Granted, most of my experience with pro-life advocates is with those groups afflilitated with the Catholic Church. The #1 activity of our pro-life committees is to fund and supply the Gabriel project centers. These centers provide all kinds of care for pregnant mothers (financial, counseling, medical, general supplies such as furntiture and maternity clothes) and for women with newborns. They are often the conduit for these families to get tapped into the rest of the diocese’s social services. Those social service include some charity of the kind you seem to downplay but also include education assistance and helping individuals find work and housing.

Our parish is in the middle of two pro-life projects right now. One is the 40 days for life. The second is raising money for a portable ultrasound clinic. The latter has a whole lot more people involved than the former and it’s all about pre-natal care for pregnant women.

Of couse, no one is ever seen on the 6 o’clock news working at the Gabriel Project when it is more “edgy” to show people protesting the abortion clinics.

 

[lelhajj]

We, as an adults, must promote and enforce good moral behavior, otherwise, what will happen to the next generation? I can not even imagine what will happen to the next generation if we get so loose about moral values.

 

[Corki]

It is correct that the “authentically Catholic position” is not hypocritically at all, but most Catholics do not embrace an “authentically Catholic position”.

Well, it’s also correct that most Catholics don’t regularly attend Mass either but that doesn’t mean that Mass is invalid.

You started this thread questioning the motives of pro-life advocates. Those who are taking an advocacy role are the ones who are embracing an authenticallly Catholic position. I have yet to meet anyone who is active in the pro-life movement that is not addressing both the legal/moral issues AND the material needs of mothers and babies.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, it’s also correct that most Catholics don’t regularly attend Mass either but that doesn’t mean that Mass is invalid.

You started this thread questioning the motives of pro-life advocates. Those who are taking an advocacy role are the ones who are embracing an authenticallly Catholic position. I have yet to meet anyone who is active in the pro-life movement that is not addressing both the legal/moral issues AND the material needs of mothers and babies.

For myself, I can’t think of a single pro-life organization in my city that doesn’t operate a home for unwed mothers. Most of them are also involved at least somewhat in the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which provides temporary assistance to people in emergency situations.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The existence of Catholic Charities is compatible with my hypothesis of an inverse correlation of concern for people’s welfare and fervency in pro-life activism (maybe I should have added among religious people). Perhaps, the workers of Catholic Charities are people who concern more able the welfare of the people instead of the sanctity of life.

Well, first of all, what you’re saying makes no sense to me. Are you a proponent of the “seamless garment” theory? Many Catholics use that reasoning to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians, that abortion is just one of many social issues and that it is silly to use that as a litmus test. I think this was one reason why so many Catholics voted for Obama. But as a very holy Pope has pointed out (thanks markomalley for the quote, and for further pointing out the dark side of supposedly “compassionate” liberal social policies), unless you protect the sanctity of life, there is no way you can protect the welfare of the people. You cannot exercise any of your other rights if you are not alive to begin with! Unless you are suggesting that a baby is better off dead than being raised by a poor, single mom or in foster care. Or you are advocating a utilitarian policy where sacrificing the lives of some is acceptable in order to improve the quality of life for others. Hmm, reminds me of the approach many Communists took to the same question. (And no, I am NOT saying you are a communist.)

Anyway, you seem to be very invested in your preconception that the average pro-life advocate is shortsighted, hypocritical, or even insincere. Much as many prejudiced people dismiss all examples to the contrary as infrequent exceptions that don’t really count to disprove their prejudice. Now, I myself used to be more “liberal” when it came to abortion, and saw the pro-life position as unrealistic. I remember being shocked and surprised when I found out about Crisis Pregnancy Centers and other resources supported by pro-lifers for disadvantaged pregnant women. None of my “pro-choice” friends had ever told me such things existed. To here them say it, pro-lifers were either sexist men (or women brainwashed by sexist men) who just wanted to exert power and control over women, or crazy religious fanatics who were all secretly making bombs in the garages or going out on the range to practice shooting abortion providers. And if you mention CPCs to many pro-choicers, they will dismiss them as just places where women are conned into going for support, then are browbeaten and coerced into having their babies. Though it’s not like the opposite (women being coerced into having abortions) never happens. They, like you, assume that as soon as the babies are born, the mothers never hear from the CPC workers/volunteers again. And, like you, they dismiss all proof to the contrary.

Now, perhaps you are correct when it comes to many politicians who claim to be pro-life. Perhaps the average pro-life politician is comparable to your understanding of the average abolitionist politician, more motivated by economic self-interest and political opportunism than a sincere concern for protecting life. However, I would suggest that about the same percentage of pro-choice advocates are concerned more about culling the unfit for eugenic and/or economic reasons and promoting the economic self-interest of abortion providers, than a sincere concern for the rights of women. My proof for that is…well, about the same as your proof that the average pro-life advocate is insincere and uncaring.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I can see where the OP is coming from. It does sometimes seem that pre-born —you’re golden. Pre-school age…someone else’s problem. At the same time, I don’t see Catholics (or any other anti-abortion groups) stampeding to childrens’ services to adopt and I certainly don’t see people waiting in line for a mixed race crack-addicted, preemie. There are still 400,000 kids in foster care. If your six weeks in utero people want to protest for you 24/7.* If your six years and been in three foster homes you’re a secondary consideration…if that.**

And that’s because it’s not currently LEGAL to KILL a 6 year old in foster care, and no one is suggesting that the “problem” of crack babies and foster care kids can be solved by killing them. Why? Their parents don’t want them and can’t take care of them, why wouldn’t they be better off dead, just like the unwanted unborn?

The simple fact is, until society starts seeing the unborn as people, people with the same rights and dignity as already born people, and quits trying to “solve” problems by killing them, we will need “the pro-life crowd” to remind society of that simple fact, even if protesting is the only thing a particular pro-lifer does.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

And perhaps Black Rose is confusing pro-life Catholics and other Christians with right wing politicians who appear advocate for the abolition of abortion (a good thing), but don’t want to provide any funding for the poor. Not the same thing at all. Catholics and (the majority of, I’m sure) other Christians are always about helping the poor, as previous posters have already documented (St. Vincent De Paul, Project Gabriel, etc.).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Black_Rose]

Well, first of all, what you’re saying makes no sense to me. Are you a proponent of the “seamless garment” theory? Many Catholics use that reasoning to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians, that abortion is just one of many social issues and that it is silly to use that as a litmus test. I think this was one reason why so many Catholics voted for Obama. But as a very holy Pope has pointed out (thanks markomalley for the quote, and for further pointing out the dark side of supposedly “compassionate” liberal social policies), unless you protect the sanctity of life, there is no way you can protect the welfare of the people.

I do not see the necessity of a pro-life (sanctity of life) ideology (defined in this context for a concern with lifeforms inside a pregnant woman’s uterus) for protecting the welfare of the people. Why is it an impossible to express a deep concern for the welfare of the already born (such as economically vulnerable people) when one rejects the notion of the sanctity of life? Could you even show that embracing a pro-life ideology is conducive towards a proactive concern for the economically vulnerable, whether through individual private charity (giving more than 5% of one’s salary) or advocating the intervention of the state?

You cannot exercise any of your other rights if you are not alive to begin with! Unless you are suggesting that a baby is better off dead than being raised by a poor, single mom or in foster care.

I will indirectly address your question because it cannot be answered with a simply “yes” or “no”. I simply do not think that it is a great victory when the pro-life movement saves a few lives from the decision of a pregnant mother to terminate their pregnancy. To me, there is no triumph in that victory because after that, it would mean that the newborn has to face the prospects of life. In many cases, this would mean the newborn would be raised in material deprivation and face further adversity. In some cases, a few of these newborns would overcome that situation through luck, either through a combination of inheriting a socially valuable genotype that endows them with profound intellectual or athletic talent and other coincidences such as wining the lottery. But it is obvious that not all newborns would be that lucky, and the prospects for many is a grim and brutal life with few meliorative factors.

Anyway, you seem to be very invested in your preconception that the average pro-life advocate is shortsighted, hypocritical, or even insincere.

It depends on how one defines the average ( I will define this as the “median” of all self-identified pro-lifers) pro-life person. Does the median pro-life person spend plenty of time volunteering or donating a large proportion of their income to pro-life causes instead of simply voting for pro-life politicians? I am willing to concede that those who are exceptionally pro-life are not " shortsighted, hypocritical, or even insincere" since they back-up their convictions with their actions, but the sincerity of this contingent does not tell us about the sincerity of the median.

Now, perhaps you are correct when it comes to many politicians who claim to be pro-life. Perhaps the average pro-life politician is comparable to your understanding of the average abolitionist politician, more motivated by economic self-interest and political opportunism than a sincere concern for protecting life. However, I would suggest that about the same percentage of pro-choice advocates are concerned more about culling the unfit for eugenic and/or economic reasons and promoting the economic self-interest of abortion providers, than a sincere concern for the rights of women. My proof for that is…well, about the same as your proof that the average pro-life advocate is insincere and uncaring.

Most people who are pro-choice are secularists and feminists who want to preserve the option for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when it happens at an inopportune time or under suboptimal circumstances so she could be relieved of the burdensome responsibility of raising a child. These people are not eugenicists and do not want to discuss such a controversial topic. The eugenicist position is based on two assumption --: those conceived in outside of a marital relationship tend to have parents who are not that intelligence and that intelligence is a highly heritable trait – with the conclusion that child from this relationship would not be intelligent and that he/she would be a burden to society once he/she matures. Those eugenicists do not care the welfare and freedom of pregnant women, but they see the children from unwed parents as a net economic and social liability. Indeed, there are people who do believe in this such as Ron Weddington who wrote a candid letter to Bill Clinton about abortion policy, not even attempting to conceal his eugenic thinking. Of course, they would not be so frank about this in public since discussing the alleged heritable intellectual deficiencies of demographic groups is taboo in public discourse.

 

[Corki]

I do not see the necessity of a pro-life (sanctity of life) ideology (defined in this context for a concern with lifeforms inside a pregnant woman’s uterus) for protecting the welfare of the people. Why is it an impossible to express a deep concern for the welfare of the already born (such as economically vulnerable people) when one rejects the notion of the sanctity of life?

I think you very eloquently answered your own question here. The only way someone can hold to the position you describe and not suffer from severe coginitive dissonance is to think in terms of “lifeforms” instead of unborn human children.

Could you even show that embracing a pro-life ideology is conducive towards a proactive concern for the economically vulnerable, whether through individual private charity (giving more than 5% of one’s salary) or advocating the intervention of the state?

Absolutely, embracing a pro-life ideology is focused on a deep concern for both the economically but also the legally vulnerable. Pro-life advocacy, at least in the US, advocates both individual private charity and state intervention.

 

[jmcrae]

Most people who are pro-choice are secularists and feminists who want to preserve the option for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when it happens at an inopportune time or under suboptimal circumstances so she could be relieved of the burdensome responsibility of raising a child.

In India right now, there is public debate going on about whether killing an inconvenient wife is to be considered “murder” or not.

A man arranges a wedding, gets married, and then decides that the woman he married is “sub-optimal” for some reason - perhaps she is not a virgin, or she doesn’t cook to his satisfaction, or she produces girls instead of boys - and under current Indian law, he has the right to kill her. It’s called an “honour killing.”

Here in the West, we are horrified by the very idea of such a thing, and rightly so. We believe that the woman has the inalienable right to life, no matter what “flaws” she may have, as a wife and mother - the idea of killing one’s wife because she is inconvenient in some way is unthinkable, on this side of the world.

The thought of killing a child merely for being inconvenient to his or her mother ought to be equally horrifying to us.

Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ&feature=related

 

[Black_Rose]

Absolutely, embracing a pro-life ideology is focused on a deep concern for both the economically but also the legally vulnerable. Pro-life advocacy, at least in the US, advocates both individual private charity and state intervention.

I think that people who declare themselves as “pro-life” are less likely to support the intervention of the state in public welfare.