Is the pro-life movement a dysfunctional movement? What can be done about it?

[BrianBoru]

The pro-life movement has been losing for 32 years. What are the reasons for our failure so far? Are pro-abortion social forces just to strong for us, or have we failed to understand the best way to deal with them?

I am beginning this thread because of my own disappointment with the performance of the pro-life movement. I have always been pro-life, but only active for about 4 years, between 1991 and 1995. For two of those years I was treasurer of our local pro-life group. Lets share some of our ideas about what has been going wrong, and hopefully try to generate some new ways of thinking to eliminate problems.

First observation: The pro-life movement is strangely uninterested in getting results. We supported the candidacies of Reagan and Bush through four election cycles, three of which we won, because we hoped they would appoint pro-lifers to the Supreme Court. At the start of Reagan’s first term the balance on the Supreme Court was 7 pro-abortionists to 2 pro-lifers. During the 12 years Reagan and Bush were in office, there were 5 resignations from the Court -all from the pro-abortion side. Yet at the end of that time the Court was still split 5-4 in favor of abortion. 3 out of the 5 Reagan-Bush appointees turned out to be on the other side. Yet there were no questions raised publicly as to whether we took the wrong approach during those years. Currently we are hoping that Bush Jr will appoint pro-lifers to the Court. Why are we revisiting an approach that already failed once? Why haven’t we even asked why it failed the first time? After all the same factors that worked against us then could be working against us now. Aren’t we even curious?

In our first pro-life meeting after the 1992 election a speaker addressed our local pro-life group. He blamed George Bush’s loss on negative publicity by the media. Media bias is a serious problem, obviously, but is it really the explanation? The media were against Reagan too, and certainly opposed to Bush when he ran in 1988. Why did the media succeed in beating Bush in 1992, when they had failed to beat him or Reagan earlier? Could it be that Bush lost because he was just a bad president? Why did pro-lifers fail to consider that as a possibility?

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg argued that people grow through 6 stages of moral development as they mature. The earliest stage of moral development is when people make their decisions based upon a punitive theory of morality. During the four years I was active in the pro-life movement I was puzzled by a lot of the pro-life group behavior. Why did the pro-lifers always insist on taking approach A, when approach B looked like it would be more fruitful? Towards then end of my fourth year with the group it finally occurred to me that for the most part, this group of adults was oriented toward a punitive theory of morality. Most of their behavior could be described as finding ways to punish pro-abortion behavior. Apparently they behaved that way because they couldn’t imagine any other way to approach this issue. Yet they did not adopt a punitive theory in all of their life circumstances. Some of them were undoubtedly sophisticated in other areas. (I have had some good conversations with pro-lifers who were thinking on Kohlbergs 4th level, which is fairly advanced.) Yet something about working in the pro-life cause seemed to make them regress to a morality based primarily on fear of punishment when the subject was abortion. Why was that?

These are just a few of the problems I have seen. I have some ideas for change that I would like to discuss, but for right now I am just going to post this, and watch the fur fly!

 

[KBarn]

First of all, I would like to say that George Bush lost in '92 because of H. Ross Perot. He received, I believe, roughly 19% of the popular vote, most of whom would have been more likely to vote for George Bush over Bill Clinton.

Second of all, I think it is a manner of wisdom that we as a pro-life movement should seek to empower and elect people who are decidedly pro-life. They appoint, on the whole, those who they think will represent what have become conservative values. Some judges become enamored with their own power as sovereign, unaccountable judges. That doesn’t mean that we should change the political tactic and try to get pro-choice people elected, which seems to be the alternative. Unless of course you favor getting third parties into power, which I think is something we may have to ultimately strive for, but for right now, I think the prudent thing to do is to work within the current system in which pro-life politics are actually already entrenched.

There is a political component to the pro-life movement, and rightly so, but the more important is the spiritual, and that is really difficult to quantify. But on the spiritual level, I think we are winning. The polling results seem to favor that conclusion. I think that we must remember that we have to win individual hearts and minds. That is the most important thing. Elections are important, but we don’t go to work every 2 or 4 years.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

My gut reaction is that the pro-life movement suffered real PR losses in the 70s and 80s. First, pro-choice (and I use the term on purpose) won the rhetorical war by emphasizing women’s “rights.” Meanwhile, opponents of abortion used strident language (calling women who got abortions murderers, or similar) and at times used questionable techniques (blowing things up). And at the same time, many viscerally have a hard time thinking of very early term babies as “really” people. So, the idea that abortion in some form should be legal has become the norm, while those who are opposed to all abortion are seen as the fringe and therefore easily discredited.

There are other tactical obsticals. Pro-life appears bound up almost inextricably with faith and religion; this image is reinforced by images of prayer vigils, anti-abortion nuns and priests, and the vocal pro-life stance of evangelical groups. Unfortunately, in my opinion the pro-life movement needs to come up with secular arguments against abortion because as long as the pro-life movement is seen as a religious movement, then oponents will paint anti-abortion legislation as a the first steps toward theocracy. When I debate my friends and colleagues about abortion, I never start with scripture or God–I try to argue from secular humanistic assumptions.

Political results are a problem. The Republicans promise but don’t deliver, because they don’t have to (because the Dems are so discredited with strong pro-lifers). Also, they can hide behind the excuse that they are blocked by the courts. This could be another avenue for pro-lifers–attack Roe v. Wade on constitutional/democratic grounds and try to make it a states-rights/legislative issue.

Finally, I would say that maybe the results have not been as negative as you perceive. Yes, abortion rates in the USA are appalling, but they seem to have been fairly level for a while, so there has not been an increase the number. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans may support legalized abortion, the vast majority also support restrictions on abortion–the radical pro-abortion position is essentially discreditied, although propped up by the courts. Perhaps the key is not to expect abortion to disappear in one swift victory (indeed, repealing Roe v. Wade will likely just mean that about half of the states will legalize abortion on the state level), but to slowly convince people to accept more and more restrictions on the practice.

 

[BrianBoru]

KBarn:

First of all, I would like to say that George Bush lost in '92 because of H. Ross Perot. He received, I believe, roughly 19% of the popular vote, most of whom would have been more likely to vote for George Bush over Bill Clinton.

.

It is possible that Perot had something to do with it. But I don’t think Perot would have run if Bush hadn’t been already perceived as such a weak president. Nor is it clear to me that Bush would have received most of the Perot votes. One big issue at the time was the Savings and Loan scandal which began under Reagan and continued under Bush. $500 billion was stolen in broad daylight over the period of several years -without anyone making the slightest fuss. Kind of strange for an administration that came to power with the rallying cry that it would cut “waste, fraud, and abuse” from the federal budget. A related issue was the increasing size of the federal deficit. It went from about $1 trillion dollars when Reagan came to power to about $4 trillion when Bush was defeated. Personally, I think if it hadn’t been for the powerful pro-life movement carrying Bush and Reagan they would never have come to power, or they would have been kicked out a long time before 1992. Their performance on this issue was awful.

KBarn:

Second of all, I think it is a manner of wisdom that we as a pro-life movement should seek to empower and elect people who are decidedly pro-life. They appoint, on the whole, those who they think will represent what have become conservative values. Some judges become enamored with their own power as sovereign, unaccountable judges. That doesn’t mean that we should change the political tactic and try to get pro-choice people elected, which seems to be the alternative. Unless of course you favor getting third parties into power, which I think is something we may have to ultimately strive for, but for right now, I think the prudent thing to do is to work within the current system in which pro-life politics are actually already entrenched.

Decidedly pro-life? Bush changed his position from pro-life to pro-choice and back 4 times. It looks like it was a position of political convenience, more than a position of conviction. Frankly, I think that Reagan’s position was just political expediency too. He signed a pro-abortion bill in California, but vetoed one of the more obnoxious parts of it. It looks like he was triangulating, getting into a “middle position” between pro-life and pro-choice so he could later on tack and veer wherever he wanted to go. He wound up veering supposedly on our side, but tacked by being careful not to do anything that would substantially hinder abortion. Other movements have no trouble finding out who is on their side and supporting them. Why do we always seem to pick people who double cross us?

 

[BrianBoru]

Vox Borealis:

My gut reaction is that the pro-life movement suffered real PR losses in the 70s and 80s. First, pro-choice (and I use the term on purpose) won the rhetorical war by emphasizing women’s “rights.” Meanwhile, opponents of abortion used strident language (calling women who got abortions murderers, or similar) and at times used questionable techniques (blowing things up).

Yes, that is part of what I was saying in my first post. Pro-lifers seem to have a basically punitive idea of morality. It comes out in many ways -not just blowing things up. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard the word “boycott” at a pro-life meeting.
Vox Borealis:

And at the same time, many viscerally have a hard time thinking of very early term babies as “really” people. So, the idea that abortion in some form should be legal has become the norm, while those who are opposed to all abortion are seen as the fringe and therefore easily discredited.

True. I have a very hard time viscerally relating to a fetus too. It may be our most difficult problem.
Vox Borealis:

There are other tactical obsticals. Pro-life appears bound up almost inextricably with faith and religion; this image is reinforced by images of prayer vigils, anti-abortion nuns and priests, and the vocal pro-life stance of evangelical groups. Unfortunately, in my opinion the pro-life movement needs to come up with secular arguments against abortion because as long as the pro-life movement is seen as a religious movement, then oponents will paint anti-abortion legislation as a the first steps toward theocracy. When I debate my friends and colleagues about abortion, I never start with scripture or God–I try to argue from secular humanistic assumptions.

Good for you! Dr. Bernard Nathanson always seems to argue starting from the Golden Rule as a premise. The Golden Rule is part of our religion, but it is also a universal moral standard that has always existed apart from Christianity. We should follow the example of Dr. Nathanson. When I have watched pro-life debaters I am usually dismayed at the poor quality of their argumenation.
Vox Borealis:

Political results are a problem. The Republicans promise but don’t deliver, because they don’t have to (because the Dems are so discredited with strong pro-lifers). Also, they can hide behind the excuse that they are blocked by the courts. This could be another avenue for pro-lifers–attack Roe v. Wade on constitutional/democratic grounds and try to make it a states-rights/legislative issue.

Right on about the Republicans! Right on about the courts! Wrong about the avenue of approach though (sorry). We have been trying that same approach for years,with no success.

My own suggestion would be to use the same approach to court-packing that Franklin Roosevelt did. Adopt a pro-life platform that required pro-life candidates to pledge to vote for a bill expanding the size of the Court to whatever size it would take to reverse Roe v Wade, and elect a president pledged to filling those seats with pro-lifers. This would eliminate waiting for several years for pro-abortion judges to resign. It would also mean that we could hold our supposedly pro-life politicians accountable for getting results. Holding alleged “pro-lifers” (ha, ha, ha) accountable has been our greatest weak point.
Vox Borealis:

Finally, I would say that maybe the results have not been as negative as you perceive.

Actually, they have been worse. We keep on electing candidates who screw up the country in various ways, because we think we need them to reverse Roe v Wade. They wind up screwing up the country, without reversing Roe. One of the reasons we have been so ineffective is that we have to carry the political burden of their screw ups.

 

[BrianBoru]

KBarn:

There is a political component to the pro-life movement, and rightly so, but the more important is the spiritual, and that is really difficult to quantify. But on the spiritual level, I think we are winning. The polling results seem to favor that conclusion. I think that we must remember that we have to win individual hearts and minds. That is the most important thing. Elections are important, but we don’t go to work every 2 or 4 years.

Two problems here: 1) Pro-lifers often seem to rationalize their failures by citing the “spiritual” aspects of being pro-life. This results in a movement without standards. Without objective and measureable standards of success or failure it becomes impossible to hold the movement accountable for anything.

Contrast our lack of standards with the standards of real political movements. Real political movements go for results. If they don’t get results they ask why, and they change their approach. Many times I have watched one political party or the other being defeated at the polls. One thing that always happens is that the old party leadership is held responsible for the defeat and gets kicked out. New leadership with new ideas is then installed. Pro-lifers have been losing for years, yet it is always the same old leaders who remain in charge. Why haven’t we kicked out our leadership? Is it our lack of standards?

1. Winning hearts and minds sounds good, but how do we do it? During the 1950’s legalizing abortion was almost unimaginable. Yet in a few years the majority of people came to accept it. Why did they change their minds?

Let me give an example from history. When the constitution was first adopted it was generally accepted that slavery was a dying institution. Southerners found it difficult to make slavery pay, and there were even Southern political parties that argued in favor of abolition -as had already happened in the North Then two things happened. First, an industrial revolution began in the North which created a huge demand for textiles. Second, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The combined effect of these two changes was to turn slavery into a highly profitable institution overnight. Those Southern political parties that favored gradual, compensated abolition were suddenly “Gone with the Wind” to coin a phrase. The economic change created an incentive for Southerners to ignore the basic humanity of their black population. When money is involved people tend to rationalize morality away. The result was a class of Southern slave owners who genuinely believed that slavery was a benign and moral institution…

How does this apply to our situation? Lets look at our own demographic changes. In an agricultural economy having a large number of children is economically beneficial to their parents. At the age of 4 a child begins helping out with the chores. By the age of 12 his labor is valuable enough that he becomes a net asset to the family. Furthermore, having a large family means that more children will be likely to survive to take care of you in your old age. We now have a basically post-industrial economy. In our economic system children are highly expensive to raise and they must study at school until they are at least 18. No hope of recouping any economic investment here. Provisions for your old age are made by social security and pension funds. Is history repeating itself? With children being a huge economic burden on their parents, people have begun to rationalize away the humanity of the unborn. After all, abortion makes everything so much easier! Just like slavery made everything so much nicer for white Southerners way back when.

With all respect, I don’t think we are going to succeed in changing human nature on this point. We need to work with the grain, rather than trying to go against it.

My suggestion would be to adopt some sort of a program of Family Allowances. That is give every family some kind of a per child stipend on a monthly basis to help defray the cost of child rearing. John Paul II suggested just such a program in his 3rd encyclical, Laborem Excercens. Maybe this would reduce the anxiety and economic fear that drives so much of the demand for abortion. If the burden of child rearing could be substantially reduced, maybe people would be more willing to listen to us.

This raises the question, are we losing because Catholic teachings are unpopular? Maybe the problem is that we have been selective in which teachings we emphasize. Some of the economic teachings of the Church that most Catholics don’t even know about may hold the key needed to actually change society on abortion. It has been said that there isn’t one person in a hundred who genuinely hates Catholic teaching. They hate what they wrongly believe to be Catholic teaching. Is that our own fault for selectively emphasizing only certain teachings?

 

[Vox_Borealis]

BrianBoru:

Let me give an example from history. When the constitution was first adopted it was generally accepted that slavery was a dying institution. Southerners found it difficult to make slavery pay, and there were even Southern political parties that argued in favor of abolition -as had already happened in the North Then two things happened. First, an industrial revolution began in the North which created a huge demand for textiles. Second, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The combined effect of these two changes was to turn slavery into a highly profitable institution overnight. Those Southern political parties that favored gradual, compensated abolition were suddenly “Gone with the Wind” to coin a phrase. The economic change created an incentive for Southerners to ignore the basic humanity of their black population. When money is involved people tend to rationalize morality away. The result was a class of Southern slave owners who genuinely believed that slavery was a benign and moral institution…

I like your approach, though the specific example could be interpreted in the exact opposite way. Slavery only ended with an abrupt and drasstic series of events–civil war and legislation outlawing it. Had the country tried to work with grain rather than against it, it may have taken generations for slavery to disappear, or more likely there would still be a few slaves kicking around (save, legal, and rare ). You are correct that we need to address the economic issus related to abortion, but I also think that legislation is the sine qua non for its complete end.

 

[BrianBoru]

Vox Borealis:

I like your approach, though the specific example could be interpreted in the exact opposite way. Slavery only ended with an abrupt and drasstic series of events–civil war and legislation outlawing it. Had the country tried to work with grain rather than against it, it may have taken generations for slavery to disappear, or more likely there would still be a few slaves kicking around (save, legal, and rare ). You are correct that we need to address the economic issus related to abortion, but I also think that legislation is the sine qua non for its complete end.

Yes, you are right, we absolutely need legislation to end it, but we need some cultural and economic changes to go along with that legislation. Otherwise the legislation won’t work.

As for the Civil War, as I recollect the total economic value of the slaves was estimated at about $2 billion before the Civil War. The North spent roughly that amount fighting the war, and I’m sure the South spent a comparable amount as well. If the country had adopted a program of gradual, compensated abolition it would have cost much less than the Civil War wound up costing both sides, and without the 600,000 casualties. Working with the grain in this case would have been far more rational and beneficial for all sides.

My guess is that everyone looked at the price tag of compensated abolition and reacted with “sticker shock”. Sometimes war looks like such a cheap and easy solution!

People look at the cost of a Family Allowance and react in the same way that Americans reacted to the cost of compensated abolition back then. So instead of dealing with our problems rationally we are having what has been rightly termed a “cultural civil war”. The Cultural Civil War is being fought about a lot of different issues, but mainly this war has always been about abortion.

This Cultural Civil War has been extremely costly to the nation. To take one example, the Savings and Loan scandal that I mentioned in an earlier post cost $500 billion dollars. The interest alone that we are paying for that particular boondoggle may wind up being 2 or 3 times that much. Yet that particular scandal would never have occurred if it hadn’t been for our Cultural Civil War. The political dynamics of how the pro-life movement distracted attention from the Savings and Loan scandal is difficult to explain in one post, but I think that the statement is true. This is just one way in which our dysfunctional pro-life movement contributes to a general dysfunction in political society at large. The Cultural Civil War is costing us in other ways as well.

Of course there is always a danger that our “Cultural Civil War” might degenerate into a real civil war. That might “solve” our abortion problem, but civil war in a major nuclear power is something that we need to avoid at all costs for the sake of the rest of the world as well as our own sake. We pro-lifers need to make some drastic changes in our thinking here, buddy.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

BrianBoru:

This Cultural Civil War has been extremely costly to the nation. To take one example, the Savings and Loan scandal that I mentioned in an earlier post cost $500 billion dollars. The interest alone that we are paying for that particular boondoggle may wind up being 2 or 3 times that much. Yet that particular scandal would never have occurred if it hadn’t been for our Cultural Civil War. The political dynamics of how the pro-life movement distracted attention from the Savings and Loan scandal is difficult to explain in one post, but I think that the statement is true. This is just one way in which our dysfunctional pro-life movement contributes to a general dysfunction in political society at large. The Cultural Civil War is costing us in other ways as well.
.

Again, we are in broad agreement, but I think there is a danger to reducing everything to an economic calculus. Some things are wrong because they wrong, regardless of the economic cost to the community. Sometimes I think the “we need to fix the economic problems” approach is used an excuse so that we don’t have to really address the problem. The attraction is that it is vague–how much is enough money? How costly should families be? These points can be bickered wih increasing nuance and exceptions forever. I think the same would have happened with slavery–even if slavery were shown to be economically unviable, or even if the North spent money on vouchers (or whatever) to encourage southern slave owners to free slaves, at least some people would continue to own slaves either because the institution was deeply ingrained culturally, or because some (especially wealthy) might have seen them as a luxury they were willing to pay.

I am drifting off topic here–my point is that I waffle between believing that if we do approach the culural/economic issues first, the legislation will naturally follow and believing that we must force the legislation first, because only then will behavior follow.

 

[BrianBoru]

Vox Borealis:

Again, we are in broad agreement, but I think there is a danger to reducing everything to an economic calculus. Some things are wrong because they wrong, regardless of the economic cost to the community.

True. We can’t reduce everything to money.
Vox Borealis:

Sometimes I think the “we need to fix the economic problems” approach is used an excuse so that we don’t have to really address the problem.

Right on, again. A lot of people do use this as an excuse for refusing to address the problem of abortion.
Vox Borealis:

The attraction is that it is vague–how much is enough money? How costly should families be? These points can be bickered wih increasing nuance and exceptions forever.

I guess I don’t know how much money, but let me suggest an approach. Try initiating a Family Allowance at as high of a level as we can politically get away with, and then see what happens with abortion. If we give each family $1000 per child per year, a few women who are thinking about abortion might change their minds. If it were $2000 per child per year, perhaps a few more would choose life. If it were $3000 per child per year, maybe quite a few. Likewise many of our fellow citizens who are now pro-choice might think, “At one time, there was no family allowance, so the system was unfair to women. Now, the prolifers have taken the hard edge off of the decision to have an abortion. Maybe we can accept a pro-life law at this point.”

There could be a third possible effect of family allowances, which might be called the “Blackmail effect”. If we make it clear that we intend to go on raising the amount of the allowance until abortion disappears, many of our fellow taxpayers would become so alarmed that they would join us in supporting laws against the practice. It would be their only practical way of shutting us up and keeping their own taxes down! Gotta be a little Machiavellan here!

Essentially, the “right” amount for the family allowance is whatever it would take to bring about a major change in public opinion. This is an empirical question which can’t be figured out in the abstract. We have to experiment with it and see what works.
Vox Borealis:

I think the same would have happened with slavery–even if slavery were shown to be economically unviable, or even if the North spent money on vouchers (or whatever) to encourage southern slave owners to free slaves, at least some people would continue to own slaves either because the institution was deeply ingrained culturally, or because some (especially wealthy) might have seen them as a luxury they were willing to pay.

I am drifting off topic here–my point is that I waffle between believing that if we do approach the culural/economic issues first, the legislation will naturally follow and believing that we must force the legislation first, because only then will behavior follow.

Oh, the emancipation of slaves would have had to be forced, no doubt about it. But there would have been less resistance if there had been compensation. It could have been approached in the same way as the power of eminent domain. “We are taking away your (slave/house) in order (to avoid Civil War/build a highway). But we will pay you a fair price.”

It looks like our best approach would be two-pronged. Outlaw abortion, AND establish a family allowance. Not that a family allowance would solve all problems. We would need to make special provisions for Downs Syndrome children and other handicapped babies. I wouldn’t favor compensation for rape victims, as it might lead to false accusations of rape, but perhaps they could receive special counseling services. You probably have other ideas.

 

[Ham1]

We already have a Family Allowance system. It’s called the federal tax code. Currently, each child is a $3,100 tax deduction which if one is in the 25% tax bracket equates to $775. Add to that the $1,000 child tax credit and each parent is receiving around $1,775 per year per child.

The problem with your proposal is twofold: 1. the amount of money to make an impact would have to be very substantial. People understand that raising children is not a particularly inexpensive proposition. The money would have to be enough to offset those costs making it far too expensive. 2. Perhaps the stronger point, is “paying” people to have children becomes a bad idea, especially for children. Essentially we would be appealing to a person’s shallow materialism in order to motivate them to do something wonderful and generous. Do we want people having children motivated by personal greed and materialism? Do we want people using children as a means to an end? I think we already have quite enough of that today.

I think the quickest way is to eliminate abortion the same way it became legal - through the courts. We need to continue to vote for whomever will get us the best judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I am sure that in 1973 the vast majority of the US was opposed to abortion. However, through the decision of the court public opinion changed over time. If the that decision was now reversed, public opinion would again change over time.

My two cents anyway…

 

[Donna_P]

I hope to answer your questions as stated.

**Is the Pro-Life movement a Dysfunctional Movement? **
1. No. look around you. In MN there is a bill working its way through the legislature to grant money to Pro-Life organizations. This could be a big boom for Life Care centers - one of which I am on the board.

---

2. Look to yourself and to each of us. We are all instruments of God to further His Word and Teaching. I forward e-mails, call and e-mail my congressmen, write rebuttals to horrible sites like www.catholicsforchoice.com (this is a particularly nasty site and I highle recommend letting them know the TRUTH with out being nasty yourself) We must all take responsibility to promote the truth - even if it is just to our neighbor, friend or relative.

---

3. Don’t you ever rule out prayer. Especially for those who are pro abortion. They need huge doses of God’s Grace to see the Truth. You and I can’t and never will make then see it

---

As to your second question - look at the answers above.

---

**Do NOT despair - that is satan’s work. Hope and trust in God. He will hear you and always help. **

---

God Bless,
Donna

 

[Donna_P]

Hot off Agape Press today! Pro Life is not dysfunctional - it is alive and kicking back!

**…A Louisiana-based pro-family advocate is pleased a three-judge panel has ruled that her state can proceed with selling a specialty license plate that benefits pro-life causes. Pro-abortion forces such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union had battled the State of Louisiana over the plates, arguing that the state had no right to allow people to purchase the plates featuring the message “Choose Life.” But now, a judicial panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the court cannot prohibit the pro-life specialty plates. Kathleen Benefield, president of the American Family Association of New Orleans, says her group is thrilled that the appellate court has reversed the District Court decision and allowed the Choose Life plates to go back on sale and to help the causes that they represent. “We think this is a victory for the women and children of the State of Louisiana,” Benefield asserts, “but also for those who want to help and to provide much needed funding for these crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies. The money generated from the plate will be used to help out in crisis pregnancy situations.” The AFA of New Orleans spokeswoman says she is also thrilled that Planned Parenthood will have to pay back attorney’s fees to the State of Louisiana.

**God Bless
Donna:clapping:

 

[geezerbob]

Donna, don’t get too excited about the license plates. South Carolina was denied the plates by a different federal court. I think there have now been three or four federal rulings on this issue. I don’t know if anyone is trying to take it to the U. S. Supreme Court but it will take that to make the plates available in all states which want to issue them. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU together make a pretty formidable legal opponent.

 

[ames61]

Excellent discussion, with fascinating historical viewpoints. I agree with pretty much everything so far. A few things to add.

1. I would insert the vantage point of addressing the lie of abortion, as groups like Silent No More and Rachel’s Vineyard are doing. As a woman who bought the lie of abortion in 1979 and again in 1983, I viewed those few pro life arguments I allowed to reach my consciousness as extremist arguments from unhinged fundamentalists.

Women who choose abortion, on the whole, are panicked, they are desparate, they are looking for a way OUT. They see abortion as a way to make the problem go away. They think once they have an abortion, the problem will be solved, and they can go back to life as before. No one needs to know.

No one tells them that with the choice of abortion the problem is only beginning. Post abortion stress symptoms are many, varied and often devastating. As more women are healed by ministries such as Rachel’s Vineyard, and begin to be able to speak to the negative consequences people will begin to the the choice of abortion as a choice that costs. And that the costs are devastatingly high, physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually.

1. Communicate this lie to the masses, especially young people. High school and college age kids are remarkably open to this message. It hits home and makes an impact. At the age of 17, if I had heard this message, the message of pain and despair, I wouldn’t have seen abortion as a consequenceless choice.
2. Go to the root. Contraception, premarital and extramarital sex. The Theology of the Body and the Church’s timeless teaching on these subjects lay the ground work for a society that no longer has the perceived need for abortion.

The same people who are advocating “safe, legal and rare” are the ones who are setting the stage to ensure that the need for abortion will always be there.

There’s more, but no time.

In Christ,
Amy

 

[weddy]

the problem as i see it is a lack of willingness in the people to stand together and say “no more” ****

 

[Trelow]

Poor catechesis and weak clergy.

What do you expect when you have people running around saying, “Hey I’m Catholic! Want a condom? Did you know I’m Cathloic? WOOT! Let’s kill a baby! I am a Catholic! Here let me hang your coat on the tabernacle. WOOT! Kill a baby!.. did I mention that I’m Catholic?”

 

[BrianBoru]

Ham1:

We already have a Family Allowance system. It’s called the federal tax code. Currently, each child is a $3,100 tax deduction which if one is in the 25% tax bracket equates to $775. Add to that the $1,000 child tax credit and each parent is receiving around $1,775 per year per child.

Good point about the federal tax code. Unfortunately this deduction has not been large enough to turn either society as a whole or many women away from abortion. We need to expand this program, and to make sure that even those in lower income levels can take full advantage of it. I believe the child tax credit is available even if you don’t pay taxes, and that is the correct approach. The amount is too low though.

Ham1:

The problem with your proposal is twofold: 1. the amount of money to make an impact would have to be very substantial. People understand that raising children is not a particularly inexpensive proposition. The money would have to be enough to offset those costs making it far too expensive.

In the first place people do understand that raising children is expensive. That is one of the reasons why so many women choose abortion and it is also one of the reasons that most of our fellow citizens support abortion on demand.

In the second place, although paying a Family Allowance at a high enough level would be expensive, would it really be any more expensive than some of the nonsense that the pro-life movement is engaged in now? Many pro-lifers feel that they must support a “pro-life” candidate under pain of mortal sin. (Check out the thread on whether it is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate.) They argue that no matter how little good he does about abortion, or how much damage he does to the rest of society that we are all still obliged to support him as good Catholics. This belief has led to some very bad consequences for the country.

Explaining the dynamics is complicated, but the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s would never have happened if pro-life, single issue voters hadn’t unbalanced the political system. That was $500 billion dollars worth of expense, right there.

If it hadn’t been for pro-life support we would not have Bush Jr running the country now. Currently he is running up even more debt on the national credit card to pay for a tax cut that goes disproportionately to wealthy individuals. We are also involved in a dubious war in Iraq, which we wouldn’t be if Gore had been elected President in 2000. Aren’t those items expensive? It would probably be cheaper to face up to our problems and use some of our pro-life political strength to solve them, than it is to pretend that Bush is going to appoint pro-lifers to the Supreme Court.

Ham1:

1. Perhaps the stronger point, is “paying” people to have children becomes a bad idea, especially for children. Essentially we would be appealing to a person’s shallow materialism in order to motivate them to do something wonderful and generous. Do we want people having children motivated by personal greed and materialism? Do we want people using children as a means to an end? I think we already have quite enough of that today.

You are correct that there are risks involved in the family allowance idea. However, I doubt that the family allowance would ever be large enough so that people achieved an actual monetary profit from it. If the allowance were large enough to defray (for example) half of the expenses of child rearing it would go a long way toward reducing the demand for abortion. The mother would still have to come up with the other half of the money herself. She would also have the burden of caring for the child. We have to weigh the risks involved in a family allowance against the 1.3 million abortions taking place every year.

Ham1:

I think the quickest way is to eliminate abortion the same way it became legal - through the courts. We need to continue to vote for whomever will get us the best judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I am sure that in 1973 the vast majority of the US was opposed to abortion. However, through the decision of the court public opinion changed over time. If the that decision was now reversed, public opinion would again change over time.

My objection to our current strategy of waiting for judges to retire is that it leaves us open to political swindling. We may not know until many years after Bush has left office whether the judges he appoints are really pro-life or not. I am betting that he won’t appoint enough judges to overturn Roe. What do you think of my idea for Roosevelt style court packing that I mentioned in an earlier post? By allowing us to push for immediate results it reduces the chance of a successful swindle.

Ham1:

My two cents anyway…

Your two cents was good.

 

[BrianBoru]

ames61:

Excellent discussion, with fascinating historical viewpoints. I agree with pretty much everything so far. A few things to add.

1. I would insert the vantage point of addressing the lie of abortion, as groups like Silent No More and Rachel’s Vineyard are doing. As a woman who bought the lie of abortion in 1979 and again in 1983, I viewed those few pro life arguments I allowed to reach my consciousness as extremist arguments from unhinged fundamentalists.

Women who choose abortion, on the whole, are panicked, they are desparate, they are looking for a way OUT. They see abortion as a way to make the problem go away. They think once they have an abortion, the problem will be solved, and they can go back to life as before. No one needs to know.

Amy, a question. Suppose there had been some form of Family Allowance in place in 1979 or 1983. Do you think it would have made a difference to your personal decision? How high would the Allowance have had to be to help you see past the panic, or would a Family Allowance have been no help to you at all, regardless of the level at which it was set? Regardless of your own personal experiences do you think there are other women who might have benefited? Thank you.

 

[Trelow]

BrianBoru:

Good point about the federal tax code. Unfortunately this deduction has not been large enough to turn either society as a whole or many women away from abortion. We need to expand this program, and to make sure that even those in lower income levels can take full advantage of it. I believe the child tax credit is available even if you don’t pay taxes, and that is the correct approach. The amount is too low though.

In the first place people do understand that raising children is expensive. That is one of the reasons why so many women choose abortion and it is also one of the reasons that most of our fellow citizens support abortion on demand.

In the second place, although paying a Family Allowance at a high enough level would be expensive, would it really be any more expensive than some of the nonsense that the pro-life movement is engaged in now? Many pro-lifers feel that they must support a “pro-life” candidate under pain of mortal sin. (Check out the thread on whether it is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate.) They argue that no matter how little good he does about abortion, or how much damage he does to the rest of society that we are all still obliged to support him as good Catholics. This belief has led to some very bad consequences for the country.

Explaining the dynamics is complicated, but the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s would never have happened if pro-life, single issue voters hadn’t unbalanced the political system. That was $500 billion dollars worth of expense, right there.

If it hadn’t been for pro-life support we would not have Bush Jr running the country now. Currently he is running up even more debt on the national credit card to pay for a tax cut that goes disproportionately to wealthy individuals. We are also involved in a dubious war in Iraq, which we wouldn’t be if Gore had been elected President in 2000. Aren’t those items expensive? It would probably be cheaper to face up to our problems and use some of our pro-life political strength to solve them, than it is to pretend that Bush is going to appoint pro-lifers to the Supreme Court.

You are correct that there are risks involved in the family allowance idea. However, I doubt that the family allowance would ever be large enough so that people achieved an actual monetary profit from it. If the allowance were large enough to defray (for example) half of the expenses of child rearing it would go a long way toward reducing the demand for abortion. The mother would still have to come up with the other half of the money herself. She would also have the burden of caring for the child. We have to weigh the risks involved in a family allowance against the 1.3 million abortions taking place every year.

My objection to our current strategy of waiting for judges to retire is that it leaves us open to political swindling. We may not know until many years after Bush has left office whether the judges he appoints are really pro-life or not. I am betting that he won’t appoint enough judges to overturn Roe. What do you think of my idea for Roosevelt style court packing that I mentioned in an earlier post? By allowing us to push for immediate results it reduces the chance of a successful swindle.

Your two cents was good.

Socialism isn’t the answer to the abortion problem.