Why isn't the pro-life movement working?

[XndrK]

Forty-four years after the Roe v Wade decision, it’s a little bit frustrating that abortion is still legal and relatively easy to access across the United States, and it’s a little bit frustrating that the pro-life/pro-choice line has leveled off at 50/50. Given the fact that it’s been almost a half-century now and we as a movement have gotten about two steps out of a mile, it’s pretty safe to say that something’s broken. But what?

If I had to guess, the main problem is that the pro-life movement has focused too much on making sure the fetus* stays alive until birth, rather than making sure that both the child and mother are well off and actually able to raise a child. Birthright is going to do a lot more toward ending abortion than March for Life ever will. And as long as we as a movement are too focused on the life of the child without paying attention to the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort: as long as we think that abortion is a thing people actually want to have, rather than a regrettable-on-all-sides last resort that most women are forced into anyway: as long as we forget that there are two people involved, women are going to be turned off by the pro-life movement and procure abortions because pro-lifers act like jerks.

:twocents:

*To be clear, no, I’m not denying the fetus’s humanity; that would be tantamount to saying that calling a high-schooler an adolescent makes them less human. I am simply using the technical term for a human between eight weeks pregnancy and birth.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Forty-four years after the Roe v Wade decision, it’s a little bit frustrating that abortion is still legal and relatively easy to access across the United States, and it’s a little bit frustrating that the pro-life/pro-choice line has leveled off at 50/50. Given the fact that it’s been almost a half-century now and we as a movement have gotten about two steps out of a mile, it’s pretty safe to say that something’s broken. But what?

If I had to guess, the main problem is that the pro-life movement has focused too much on making sure the fetus* stays alive until birth, rather than making sure that both the child and mother are well off and actually able to raise a child. Birthright is going to do a lot more toward ending abortion than March for Life ever will. And as long as we as a movement are too focused on the life of the child without paying attention to the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort: as long as we think that abortion is a thing people actually want to have, rather than a regrettable-on-all-sides last resort that most women are forced into anyway: as long as we forget that there are two people involved, women are going to be turned off by the pro-life movement and procure abortions because pro-lifers act like jerks.

:twocents:

*To be clear, no, I’m not denying the fetus’s humanity; that would be tantamount to saying that calling a high-schooler an adolescent makes them less human. I am simply using the technical term for a human between eight weeks pregnancy and birth.

Short answer? Federal courts have too much power.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Forty-four years after the Roe v Wade decision, it’s a little bit frustrating that abortion is still legal and relatively easy to access across the United States, and it’s a little bit frustrating that the pro-life/pro-choice line has leveled off at 50/50. Given the fact that it’s been almost a half-century now and we as a movement have gotten about two steps out of a mile, it’s pretty safe to say that something’s broken. But what?

If I had to guess, the main problem is that the pro-life movement has focused too much on making sure the fetus* stays alive until birth, rather than making sure that both the child and mother are well off and actually able to raise a child. Birthright is going to do a lot more toward ending abortion than March for Life ever will. And as long as we as a movement are too focused on the life of the child without paying attention to the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort: as long as we think that abortion is a thing people actually want to have, rather than a regrettable-on-all-sides last resort that most women are forced into anyway: as long as we forget that there are two people involved, women are going to be turned off by the pro-life movement and procure abortions because pro-lifers act like jerks.

:twocents:

*To be clear, no, I’m not denying the fetus’s humanity; that would be tantamount to saying that calling a high-schooler an adolescent makes them less human. I am simply using the technical term for a human between eight weeks pregnancy and birth.

From its foundation, US Slavery took a hundred years to become illegal. Another hundred years before racial hatred and inequality started dying down a bit. (There is still much work to be done there.) Bottom line: Humans are some of the most hard-hearted, stubborn, egotistical, hateful, hurtful blundering idiots on earth.

 

[XndrK]

Short answer? Federal courts have too much power.

Federal courts don’t really change people’s minds; they’re a bit high up for that. Also, state laws and personhood amendments haven’t passed, so …

 

[edwest2]

It is working.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2132761,00.html

Ed

 

[XndrK]

It is working.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2132761,00.html

Ed

Too slowly.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Abortion needs to be made redundant. The reasons why woman feel driven to abort need to be resolved. Unfortunately abortion is the easier and cheaper solution. I think a lot of pro life groups do great work but like others mentioned it will take decades if not centuries to get humanity to come around to the obvious.

 

[commenter]

The media has made so called “pro choice” its highest priority. This is not only in their editorials, but news coverage. A local politician took a prolife stand. Soon there are inquiries into that fundraiser from 5 years ago. His constituents who don’t like him are suddenly granted interviews, all his actions are suddenly scrutinized in detail. Prochoice politicians are subject to far less scrutiny, they themselves get puff media time, not their enemies, etc. etc.

On TV when characters are prochoice, they are depicted as compassionate, open minded, caring. And good looking. The prolifers are depicted, well…differently.

The local State operated School of Social Work goes to extremes to emphasize inclusiveness, diversity, etc. At the same time staff, on State time, rant and rave in the classroom and in the media against the Catholic Church because it dares to be prolife.

The local diocese spends at least 100 times as much money on caring for children after they are born, in families that have challenges, than they spend on prolife. Yet the media trashes the Catholic Church for ignoring children after they are born.

 

[commenter]

Birthright is going to do a lot more toward ending abortion than March for Life ever will.

Rev. Martin Luther King thought that his Marches - on Washington, and other cities, were effective. Just because you do one strategy does not mean you can’t do other strategies at the same time, which he did. And which prolifers do.

One safety net for children is the Child Protection System. Yes, it is not the only solution. Yes, there are other kinds of prevention: public education, parenting classes, visiting nurses, counseling, and so on. But no, you would not abandon the Child Protection System and concentrate only on parenting classes. You do both, simultaneously, with preference to the prevention rather than more invasive interventions.

 

[redbetta]

I am part of a pro-life group at my university and, from what I see, we are good about trying to inform people of the resources available to them for adoption, pregnancy, etc. However, nothing is going to change if people don’t want to change their way of life. The humanity of the unborn is an inconvenient truth that people don’t want to accept because that means you cannot responsibly sleep around or sleep with someone not committed to you. If abortion was illegal and you don’t want to carry out a pregnancy, the only full-proof way to avoid it is not have sex. But, sex is seen as an absolute need to so many. We can have all the resources in the world available and nothing would change if people don’t change their attitudes regarding sex.

 

[katy]

Commenter and redbetter said very well what my observations have been. The government has more influence than one might think. There is a saying about the law being an educator. Also, many people believe if something is legal, it is moral.

 

[XndrK]

Rev. Martin Luther King thought that his Marches - on Washington, and other cities, were effective. Just because you do one strategy does not mean you can’t do other strategies at the same time, which he did. And which prolifers do.

One safety net for children is the Child Protection System. Yes, it is not the only solution. Yes, there are other kinds of prevention: public education, parenting classes, visiting nurses, counseling, and so on. But no, you would not abandon the Child Protection System and concentrate only on parenting classes. You do both, simultaneously, with preference to the prevention rather than more invasive interventions.

I didn’t say that March for Life is ineffective – rather, I think it’s going to precipitate the end of legal justification for abortion, and one of my pie-in-the-sky dreams is to hold a pro-life occupation on the scale of Occupy Wall Street or Euromaidan; I just think that to produce the radical social change required to bring abortion to an end, we need more of Birthright et al than we already have.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I think the reason is obvious. Never, in the untold millennia of human history was an ethical system proposed which demanded that sex MUST be coupled with the possibility of procreation. On the contrary, in many ethical systems sex is viewed as a sacred practice, a communion with the gods. What you call pro-life is actually anti-“birth control”. Birth control in some form was practiced since the dawn of time. Humans and the (other ) great apes are the only two species where sex is not tied to the estrus. And since sex is pleasurable, people will practice it even if they find the procreation unwanted, or even a burden. I don’t think that there is any sign of reversing this trend.

 

[XndrK]

Never, in the untold millennia of human history was an ethical system proposed which demanded that sex MUST be coupled with the possibility of procreation. On the contrary, in many ethical systems sex is viewed as a sacred practice, a communion with the gods.

Last I checked, they all did, which is why contraception had to be pitched starting in the '20s and only became mainstream in the '60s.

And sex is a sacred practice because it is inextricably tied to procreation.

Besides, when pregnancy occurs, it stops being a matter of “what is sex for” and becomes one of “is this alive”, so it’s a moot point.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Last I checked, they all did, which is why contraception had to be pitched starting in the '20s and only became mainstream in the '60s.

I guess you looked at the wrong places. The Oriental view of sex was concerned with the pleasure aspect and practiced accordingly. The Kama Sutra was not written (and could not have originated) in a Christian culture. Can you point out any ancient Oriental text which condemned sex for being used for pleasure only? I don’t think so. None of the ancient pagan cultures in Europe considered sex only “permissible” when it was tied to procreation.

The only ethical system which looks with disapproval at “sex-for-pleasure” is the Christian one. And not every Christian “faction” shares this sentiment. The only way to “jump-start” the pro-life movement would be to concentrate on the preventive methods, so that abortion would not be necessary any more. And that would be a very good thing, too, since there are no women who would prefer to become pregnant, just to undergo an abortion, which is a very traumatic and unwelcome experience.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

; I just think that to produce the radical social change required to bring abortion to an end, we need more of Birthright et al than we already have.

I agree. How do we bring about radical social change valuing life at all stages, and dare I say all classes and cultures? In the mean time we need to be there for pregnant women, new mothers and their children.

 

[XndrK]

I guess you looked at the wrong places. The Oriental view of sex was concerned with the pleasure aspect and practiced accordingly. The Kama Sutra was not written (and could not have originated) in a Christian culture. Can you point out any ancient Oriental text which condemned sex for being used for pleasure only? I don’t think so. None of the ancient pagan cultures in Europe considered sex only “permissible” when it was tied to procreation.

The only ethical system which looks with disapproval at “sex-for-pleasure” is the Christian one. And not every Christian “faction” shares this sentiment. The only way to “jump-start” the pro-life movement would be to concentrate on the preventive methods, so that abortion would not be necessary any more. And that would be a very good thing, too, since there are no women who would prefer to become pregnant, just to undergo an abortion, which is a very traumatic and unwelcome experience.

To quote from the Buddha’s Kama Sutta:

So one, always mindful, should avoid sexual desires. Letting them go, he will cross over the flood like one who, having bailed out the boat, has reached the far shore.

Also, the (twice-cited) quote from Wikipedia (which of course gets me banned from scholarly discussion because AAAAAA WIKIPEDIA AAAAAA):

[The Kama Sutra] presents itself as a guide to a virtuous and gracious living that discusses the nature of love, family life and other aspects pertaining to pleasure oriented faculties of human life.

In short, yes, even Eastern religions have regarded sex as something more than pleasure, which makes sense: it is the act which starts a family. If Eastern traditions regarded sex as “just another thing you can do”, then why are most family units even there one husband, one wife, and the kids?

To quote from C. S. Lewis:

Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

 

[Latias]

I agree. How do we bring about radical social change valuing life at all stages, and dare I say all classes and cultures? In the mean time we need to be there for pregnant women, new mothers and their children.

I do not know what is necessary to bring about a change in consciousness. XndrK said he wanted a pro-life Maidan.

Here is an article about the success of the Maidan.

newcoldwar.org/the-growth-of-fascism-in-ukraine-before-and-after-euromaidan/

What factors contributed to the fascization of Ukrainian society?

(1) State anti-communism and nationalism. The Ukrainian bourgeois state arose on the ruins of the Soviet Union. Its architect was that section of the Ukrainian Soviet bureaucracy which sought to participate in the privatization of public property. This part of the bureaucracy sought to dispose of public property on the territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic without the control of the central apparatus of the USSR. Therefore, the union of former Soviet bureaucrats with nationalist forces became the basis for the formation of the new ruling class of “independent” Ukraine.

(3) Support for nationalist and neo-fascist forces during the regime of Yanukovych. Yanukovych and his Party of Regions relied on the votes of the industrial and Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions of the country, lacking a growth of alternative political forces, especially the left. In turn, the political strategists of the regime sought to fragment the political field in the west and center of the country, supporting the nationalist forces with money and media.

(4) The union of pro-Western neoliberals and Nazis against President Yanukovych became the nucleus of Euromaidan. Our organization wrote in winter 2014: “The undoubted success of the nationalists is that they, due to their high level of activity, have managed to impose their ideological leadership on the Euromaidan. This is evidenced by the slogans which have become a kind of ‘password’ for activists at mass gatherings on Maidan Square. The first is ‘Glory to Ukraine — Glory to heroes!’, which, together with the raising of the right hand with straightened palm, was the salute of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in April 1941. Others include ‘Glory to the nation — death to the enemy!’, ‘Ukraine above all’ (tracing back to the infamous German ‘Deutchland uber alles’), and ‘Whoever does not jump – is a Muscovite.’ The other opposition parties do not have a clear-cut ideological line or set of slogans, leading the liberal opposition to adopt the nationalist slogans and nationalist agenda. ” Thus, the alliance of neoliberals and Nazis took place. While the neoliberals adopted the political program of the Ukrainian fascists, the Nazis agreed with carrying out the neoliberal line in the economy. This alliance was “sanctified” by representatives of Western imperialism, such as Catherine Ashton, Victoria Nuland and John McCain.

(5) Support of Ukrainian big capital for Euromaidan, including its Nazi side. The largest owners and oligarchs were customers, sponsors and the main “beneficiaries” of Euromaidan. The fact that oligarch-capitalists, such as Igor Kolomoisky, Petro Poroshenko, Dmitry Firtash, Sergei Taruta and, to a lesser extent, Rinat Akhmetov, allocated funding to Euromaidan, swept this movement into the media they control. When the Euromaidan triumphed, those who previously governed the country indirectly, through the administration of Yanukovych, received direct control, including as governors of key areas, and oligarch Petro Poroshenko became president.

 

[commenter]

Christianity (and others) embraced the Natural Law. Contraception goes against the Natural Law. The Churches universally opposed contraception until 1930, since then many Protestant churches switched over and accepted it. For awhile, they argued that birth control would reduce the need for abortion.

The reality is that expansion of contraception has gone hand in hand with expansion of abortion. The access to one does not reduce the other. Erosion of the Natural Law has continued, and the same churches that switched over to accept contraception are now switching over to accept abortion and gay marriage.

The pro-life movement is working in that the people are doing exactly what they should be doing. They affirm the sanctity of life, oppose abortion, and struggle to support life across all its stages, especially for women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

There are signs of success. Only in the last couple years has there been an outreach to employees of abortion clinics. Many have converted. Many clinics have closed, as a result of social pressure in the community. But the only “sign of success” is for prolifers to do what Christ would do in the situation. We then leave the “signs of success”, or lack of such, to God. We may not see the fruits of our actions in our lifetime.

 

[edwest2]

Every year, I saw one today, there is a time set aside for people to hold signs calling for an end to abortion. There are a number of pro-life demonstrations, but according to a knowledgeable person, they don’t get the media coverage pro-abortion demonstrations do. Here’s a resource with links to more resources:

priestsforlife.org/

And talk to your priest about this as well.

God bless,
Ed

If even one life is saved, it is worth it.