A friend of mine posted this on his facebook today:
patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
I don’t know what to say. What are some thoughts you all have?
I think she makes some good points, for the following reasons:
–if one’s goal is to prevent abortion – a question of life or death – it is a questionable strategy to recommend abstinence as the ideal, as Plan A, without acknowledging contraception as a Plan B. What happens, in reality, is that Plan B is often having an abortion (not saying that contraception is 100% percent effective, but abortion is then at least relegated to a “Plan C”, at one further remove as a method of birth control).
I understand questions of conscience, whereby one cannot say, by way of analogy, “don’t use drugs but, if you do, use clean needles.” Nonetheless, as this is viewed as nothing less than a matter of life and death, I think one needs to be pragmatic and to ask, “I know I would prefer abstinence or childbirth as the two ideal, moral scenarios. Barring that, which do I prefer – contraception and a greater likelihood of the prevention of pregnancy, or failure to prevent pregnancy and abortion?”
-----I think that fiscal conservatism, as the author points out, is actually undermining the pro-life goal, which is to minimize the number of abortions. If a woman cannot afford to raise a child – or perceives that she cannot afford to raise a child – she is more likely to abort it. The argument that “many pro-lifers seem much interested in the well-being of the unborn, than they are in the well-being of other peoples’ children, once they are born,” is often accurate. To say, “well, it’s the parents responsibility to take care of their own children, not mine” is at loggerheads with the pro-life perspective regarding the unborn, which is, “it’s not my child, but I care about this child as a member of the human family.”
—it’s difficult to deny that, in the minds of many, pro-life is not only about respect for the life of the unborn, but also preoccupation with sexual morality. Abortion, to put it bluntly, is often associated in their minds with “sinful sex; sex that should not have occurred.” If this is not the case, then the outspokeness of someone like Rush Limbaugh – an ardent pro-lifer – needs to be taken to task, because he is damaging the reputation of the movement. I’m referring to Limbaugh’s reference to women who fight for contraceptive coverage as, semantically speaking, “prostitutes”, because “a woman who wants to receive money in order to have sex is a prostitute”; he also stated “this woman who testified before Congress is having
so much sex, she cannot afford contraception!”
—she makes a good point that pro-life activists should logically be very concerned about the rate of “natural” miscarriages, which I believe is upwards of 20% of all pregnancies (whether the woman is aware of them, or not). That is a higher percentage of terminated pregnancies, I believe, than those that end in abortion (numerically, more of the unborn have miscarried than have been aborted). My sense is that they are more fatalistic regarding “spontaneous abortion”, chalking it up to the will of God; yet no one would chalk up infant mortality, or child mortality, to the will of God. They would feel the need to do something about it. I suppose that better pre-natal care for poorer women would be a solution, but I’m not sure if a fiscal conservative would support more funding in this quarter.
I think, generally, the Catholic church tends to be more sincere in its pro-life stance than I find many Evangelical Protestants to be, especially as regards caring about the well-being of a child on
both sides of the womb, both within it and outside of it; as well as caring about the well-being of the mother. Someone like Limbaugh seems to have withering contempt for any “irresponsible” mother who would presume to have the taxpayer bear the burden of her children.
dlcc.org/news/indiana-republicans-propose-slashing-prenatal-care
nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?_r=0
