Pro Life Response to Pro-Choice Book

[Maghog]

I participate in a book club at my town’s local public library. Usually the books are historical fiction or mysteries that are interesting reads and easy to discuss. This month’s book is “My Notorious Life” by Kate Manning. The book has a pro-choice feel to it and I’m wondering if anyone could give me some ideas about how I should respond to it (we meet to discuss it on Wednesday).

For those who haven’t read the book, it is in the 1800s in a very poor part of New York. The main character has her mother die in childbirth and is abandoned by her father. Kids are starving to death in the streets and medical care is very poor or non-existent. Multiple female characters die in child birth and leave their kids as orphans. The main character becomes an apprentice to a mid-wife and learns about how to deliver babies. She also learns some abortion and contraceptive techniques. The book tries to justify these techniques since the people are living in such poor/wretched conditions and medical technology is so lacking that many people are dying in childbirth.

What would be a good way for me to respond to the two main threads in the book:
a.) the thread of extreme poverty justifying abortion/contraception
b.) the thread of poor medical care causing widespread death in childbirth and orphaning the remaining children of the mother as a justification to abortion/contraception
I think point B is tougher for me to argue against than point A (but both of them are hard).

I tried asking a few people at my church and they seemed to hint that I should skip this month’s book club since they fear that the other side will convert me to being pro-choice and that we shouldn’t try to answer their objections. I’m personally leaning towards going to the book club, but I would really appreciate some advice/prayers about how I should respond to this book (especially if someone else has read it and has different thoughts on the book - I actually still have a hundred pages yet to read some maybe the pro-choice feel will go away, but I doubt it).

Thanks and God Bless

 

[mommy_k]

So, the main character shares the same beginnings of life as the babies she is learning to murder or prevent their lives-- and the main character is ok with that?

A rational person in your book club will not be able to justify this.

 

[lax16]

Interesting situation…

First of all I would definitely be prepared to show sympathy for a woman who finds herself poor, desperate and pregnant.

Perhaps be prepared to discuss the courage it took/takes for women from the beginning of time to go through childbirth. Remind them without that courage nobody in the book club would be sitting there discussing the book because they wouldn’t have been born.

I would also focus on the benefits of living in a country with advanced healthcare and encourage everyone in the group to get involved in helping a cause that benefits women in poor areas or poor countries.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[petra22]

Interesting situation…

First of all I would definitely be prepared to show sympathy for a woman who finds herself poor, desperate and pregnant.

Perhaps be prepared to discuss the courage it took/takes for women from the beginning of time to go through childbirth. Remind them without that courage nobody in the book club would be sitting there discussing the book because they wouldn’t have been born.

I would also focus on the benefits of living in a country with advanced healthcare and encourage everyone in the group to get involved in helping a cause that benefits women in poor areas or poor countries.

Let us know how it goes.

and I’m praying for you. What are the real statistics about women dying in poverty conditions during childbirth? Does India have this same problem? Just curious.

 

[utah_rose]

I’d also look for some real historical statistics of childbirth in the cities at that time. Although I’m sure there were many who died in childbirth, I think some who died was because doctors and midwives weren’t aware of sterilization of instruments and even washing hands properly. This even occurred in hospitals because doctors were slow to respond to cleanliness, thus women often died in childbirth because of dirty instruments, hands, and clothing. I’m not sure how the midwife in this novel handles this, but it might be a good point to make.

Also some immigrant families were suspicious of doctors and even midwives outside their ethnic circles so women didn’t get proper help during childbirth and because of poor hygiene the mothers and often babies died.

You might find too that because if these circumstances, many other mothers died who weren’t poverty stricken.because of clumsy medical knowledge of both doctors and midwives.

 

[RPRPsych]

From a medical point of view, abortion is certainly not the solution to maternal deaths in childbirth; if hygienic conditions are so poor as to make childbirth dangerous, the same strictures would apply to abortion. The solution to maternal mortality is better antenatal and intra-partum care, not abortion.

On contraception; it has its own adverse effects, ranging from mood changes (usually depression) to an elevated risk of certain cancers. As for permanent sterilisation, if hygiene is an issue, any surgery would be fraught with risks anyhow.

Looking at another facet: how does the book portray these actions by the protagonist? Is she conflicted about what she is doing? Doubtful? Repentant? These details could be used to start a discussion about moral choices and conscience.

 

[jaimeleglise]

Why can’t the main character use her knowledge to teach women to better take care of themselves?

 

[Murmurs]

On the one hand I’d express ideas along the lines of those already outlined above (so I won’t bother to repeat them as they are good ones!)

However a few of the comments above are also rather troubling and do betray a tendency to view social/medical problems of 100+ years ago as being equivalent to today’s. Apart from anything else, women quite simply did not have the agency that they do now. Which isn’t to say that every or even any greater (tiny) proportion pregnancies compared to today, were the result of rape or anything like that - but with or without contraception many women were not in a position to say ‘no’.

The desire to access contraception which many women (and of course male supporters) fought for - however much we as Catholics might consider it misguided - was at least partly predicated on the fact that a) childbirth was potentially very dangerous and b) a wife was not really in a position to say no to her husband. The situation isn’t even one that one could legitimately claim is linked to a growing desire/need on the part of women to work outside the home - it was primarily simply a reflection of the fact that a wife had no real right to refuse her husband and every act between them, all things being equal, might result in yet another pregnancy. The concept of ‘trying for a baby’ which everyone now embraces barely existed. Women weren’t seeking to turn from ‘open-ness to life’ but to protect themselves, and their families.

(Should also point out from a perspective of historical accuracy, hormonal contraception didn’t exist: what we’re talking about are barrier methods).

I.e. - I haven’t read the book (I might now though!). But what the protagonist is experiencing or considering isn’t an unrealistic reflection of life, especially among the working classes, at the time during which the book is set.

Going back to the original question - what I might say is that in this character’s context, it’s a perfectly reasonable, understanding, and compassionate response to life, in that situation, (if also a morally dubious one). It’s not remotely tantamount for an argument in favour of any of it in the 21st century. Because society (and medical competence) has moved on, each of the arguments propounded or implied in the book, no longer apply.

Go, or don’t go to the book club - but my advice is to just enjoy the story. Moral quandries and books that make us think or question our own assumptions are always to be valued: we don’t have to accept them.

Maybe for a future month try find a book that takes another perspective, and suggest that?

 

[MT1926]

I participate in a book club at my town’s local public library. Usually the books are historical fiction or mysteries that are interesting reads and easy to discuss. This month’s book is “My Notorious Life” by Kate Manning. The book has a pro-choice feel to it and I’m wondering if anyone could give me some ideas about how I should respond to it (we meet to discuss it on Wednesday).

The book tries to justify these techniques since the people are living in such poor/wretched conditions and medical technology is so lacking that many people are dying in childbirth.

What would be a good way for me to respond to the two main threads in the book:
a.) the thread of extreme poverty justifying abortion/contraception
b.) the thread of poor medical care causing widespread death in childbirth and orphaning the remaining children of the mother as a justification to abortion/contraception
I think point B is tougher for me to argue against than point A (but both of them are hard).

I’m personally leaning towards going to the book club, but I would really appreciate some advice/prayers about how I should respond to this book (especially if someone else has read it and has different thoughts on the book - I actually still have a hundred pages yet to read some maybe the pro-choice feel will go away, but I doubt it).

Thanks and God Bless

I did not read the book so can not comment on the outcome of it. However, I think I can still give some advice on points A and B.

I would consider approaching these points from a present standpoint. You would need to come up with the details you are comfortable with, but how about a what if scenario?

What if abortion was legal in 1860? How would that have affected present day America?

I can only speculate, but I think it would have set the country back decades. It is so much easier for us to ignore the health and welfare of an adult than a young innocent child. If abortion was legal back then would those areas of New York immigrants ever improved or would the legalized abortion kept them in their poverty. The country obviously improved the health and welfare of the area, would this still have occurred if abortion was legal back then. How about women’s rights? Would abortion back then have lowered women’s value? I could see men treating women as their property (which I do remember did occur) however women would now be something for their pleasure that they could easily go out and fix if a “mistake” occurs.

I could go on and on.
What about health laws and regulations?
What about advancements in medical care?
What about laws to help these impoverished areas?
How about all of the hospitals, clinics and soup kitchens the church has set up in these poor areas?
What about Salvation army coming to America in 1878?
How about Catholic Charities founded in 1910 and the many other charities starting to help these people?

Would we have any of these if it weren’t for these poor destitute children that were not aborted?

Most importantly what about the attitudes of the American public and society as a whole? Would this country have come as far as it has if in 1860 we put no value on human life?

Hope this helps and doesn’t cause more problems. But I find most people just want what they want and don’t think about how it will affect others or the nation as a whole.

God Bless