Why isn't the pro-life movement working?

[Lea101]

I agree about your point about how a lot of pro life advocates are only worrying about the outcome of the fetus as opposed to caring about children+mothers. Heard some of them were whining about people on welfare…yeesh…

But also, abortion is “necessary” under the disguise of social justice. It is seen as a pro women issue, and of course people want to be good by supporting anti-sexism to the point where they will believe anything you want them to believe. Coupled with the fact that society is all about separation of church and state, they see pro life as a religious issue, not to be enforced on people who don’t have this view.

It also takes a while for people to change their minds. I mean, we still have people that think racial mixing is a communist thing and that racial segregation is the way to go. Granted, they are usually the older people, but beliefs are handed down and it’ll take a while to eradicate it

We can just try our best I guess.

 

[Stephen_says]

I wonder if a change in priorities is needed. Everyone speaks of pro-life success as banning abortion through laws. This is all well and good, and it would be awesome if that happens everywhere, but I think we need to wake up to reality that it may not happen, and therefore success needs to be defined through some other way.

I think the pro-life movement IS working. It works every time we bring Christ to meet troubled mothers. It works every time a rosary is said outside a facility. It works every time a mass is said for the intention of the preborn.

It’s hard to hear, but God does not call us to be successful, he calls us to be faithful. That may sound like a cop-out, but if you’re only goal is changing laws and banning abortion, you’re missing the opportunity to help a real person who might not have met Christ yet, and that’s the ultimate purpose God calls us to.

 

[Lea101]

I wonder if a change in priorities is needed. Everyone speaks of pro-life success as banning abortion through laws. This is all well and good, and it would be awesome if that happens everywhere, but I think we need to wake up to reality that it may not happen, and therefore success needs to be defined through some other way.

I think the pro-life movement IS working. It works every time we bring Christ to meet troubled mothers. It works every time a rosary is said outside a facility. It works every time a mass is said for the intention of the preborn.

It’s hard to hear, but God does not call us to be successful, he calls us to be faithful. That may sound like a cop-out, but if you’re only goal is changing laws and banning abortion, you’re missing the opportunity to help a real person who might not have met Christ yet, and that’s the ultimate purpose God calls us to.

Good point. IMO i feel the best way is to have our version of Planned Parenthood. Obria (?) clinics are apparently a pro life medical centre for pregnancy/stds, which is good. I feel if we were to focus on supporting clinics like this, we will go a longer way. Banning abortion could cause a knee jerk reaction and I feel like it might not ‘work’ in the sense that people will be more against pro life

 

[styrgwillidar]

Abortion was around when it wasn’t legal. (It is heartening that the number/rate of abortions have been trending downward.)

In fact, the first wave feminists- the suffragettes- cited the existence of abortion as an evil which could be eliminated by women getting the vote and having more control over their lives.

As others have said, it isn’t the laws that need to change as much as the hearts of the people. The law will change to reflect that heart, as a statement of the standard of morality.

But, abortion will continue to exist just as it has throughout most of human history.

 

[XndrK]

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/

I would like to point something out real quick:

Borotba, the organization that owns New Cold War, is a Communist organization operating out of eastern Ukraine, so they have a necessarily leftist slant and would probably call the mainstream American right fascist.

And no matter Maidan’s background, it did achieve what it set out to do, so …

 

[Latias]

I would like to point something out real quick:

Borotba, the organization that owns New Cold War, is a Communist organization operating out of eastern Ukraine, so they have a necessarily leftist slant and would probably call the mainstream American right fascist.

And no matter Maidan’s background, it did achieve what it set out to do, so …

I have no problem with Borotba. They are a great organization, but they do not own the New Cold War, they just posted some articles there.

The point is that Borotba was correct. The Maidan involved ideological support before it started. There was state sponsored dissemination of anti-communist and Ukrainian nationalist ideology, ironic support for groups holding those views by the Yanukovych administration, wealthy people sponsoring those views, and foreign powers supporting those individuals.

I do not think your pro-life movement would have that.

The Maidan was not spontaneous; the infrastructure for it was in place two years before the 2014 Ukrainian coup.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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?

The pro-life movement has a definite image problem.

I agree that the March for Life probably hurts a lot more than it helps. The event comes across as a political rally for R’s and/or a big party or something “fun” to do. “Fun” is heavily stressed in all pro-March reporting. If the marchers really believed that abortion is the holocaust that they say it is, I don’t think they would be so concerned with their own entertainment.

Women have been having abortions for thousands of years; it’s never going to go away completely and is only going to be reduced through public health efforts similar to ways people have been discouraged from smoking. Marching and protesting doesn’t usually change people’s minds and hearts, it’s really to make the marchers feel better.

Maybe the Church could fund a study to find out why women get abortions. And then work to reduce those situations or conditions. People could explain that abortions are a drain on our health system and then work to reduce their numbers in ways that don’t involve yelling.

Protests concentrate on abortion clinics (mostly poor women) rather than IVF clinics (rich women) even though many more lives are lost in IVF clinics. I think people find this hypocritical and maybe even a bit racist.

There’s little emphasis on crisis pregnancy centers or helping pregnant women. I don’t know of a single Catholic diocese in the U.S. that operates a crisis pregnancy center, for example. Most are run by poorly-funded non-profits who are always begging for money. Yes, some are run by individual Catholics, but with minimal hierarchical support. There’s no visible “big money” behind the pro-life movement other than in politics. Again, if people aren’t willing to help pregnant women in a much more tangible way, then the pro-life movement once again just comes across as nothing but meddling in other people’s lives or as an arm of the Republican party. That significantly hurts credibility.

 

[XndrK]

I have no problem with Borotba. They are a great organization, but they do not own the New Cold War, they just posted some articles there.

The point is that Borotba was correct. The Maidan involved ideological support before it started. There was state sponsored dissemination of anti-communist and Ukrainian nationalist ideology, ironic support for groups holding those views by the Yanukovych administration, wealthy people sponsoring those views, and foreign powers supporting those individuals.

I do not think your pro-life movement would have that.

The Maidan was not spontaneous; the infrastructure for it was in place two years before the 2014 Ukrainian coup.

Doesn’t every revolution have ideological support (though I’m not sure what you mean by that) before it starts?

Why wouldn’t we have financial backing? We have the Hobby Lobby/Chick-Fil-A crowd to pull sponsorship from, as well as the Republican Party (though we may not lean on that too much; there’s a lot of icky stuff in the GOP that I for one would like to keep a respectable distance from) and most of Latin America and the Muslim world. (That’d be weird: a pro-life, Saudi-backed revolution in the United States. Meh. I’ll take their cash.)

Granted, putting the infrastructure together would need to start now, but hey, why not?

 

[Latias]

Doesn’t every revolution have ideological support (though I’m not sure what you mean by that) before it starts?

Why wouldn’t we have financial backing? We have the Hobby Lobby/Chick-Fil-A crowd to pull sponsorship from, as well as the Republican Party (though we may not lean on that too much; there’s a lot of icky stuff in the GOP that I for one would like to keep a respectable distance from) and most of Latin America and the Muslim world. (That’d be weird: a pro-life, Saudi-backed revolution in the United States. Meh. I’ll take their cash.)

Granted, putting the infrastructure together would need to start now, but hey, why not?

You have to deal with unsavory associations. If I am interested in anti-pro-life propaganda, I would not hesitate to point that out. As I said before, you need sympathetic media coverage that will overlook any violent actions or dubious associations.

Islamic terrorists in Syria received US funding, even though they ultimately distrust the US. We are talking about political realism here, not ways to smear your movement. You would likely need to accept that funding.

I sure hope to God such a pro-life Maidan would not advance to a Pinochet, Videla, or Franco stage. They are all coups (including the Euromaidan). But this is not about my disgust towards them or any distaste towards the conservative politics of the pro-life movement, but what would a successful political, pro-life movement would be. I am not saying it would reach that level, but I do not see any compelling reason that once it assumes power, it would not do so.

Besides, many people still like Pinochet, Videla, and Franco.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

Not only would it be necessary to change people’s ideas about sex outside of marriage, but it will also always be difficult to balance the rights of the mother and those of the child if the mother doesn’t want to carry the child for nine months. Forcing the mother go carry an unwanted child against her will is always going to be problematical. It becomes even more problematical if the pregnancy is a result of something like rape. I don’t know how to easily solve these issues.

 

[Melodeonist]

I feel that the pro-life movement should attack abortion with secular arguments. Religious arguments might work fine with other religious people, but for the non religious majority a secular angle would be much more persuasive.

 

[XndrK]

I feel that the pro-life movement should attack abortion with secular arguments. Religious arguments might work fine with other religious people, but for the non religious majority a secular angle would be much more persuasive.

Okay, good, I’m not the only person who thinks that.

 

[commenter]

The pro-life movement has a definite image problem.

Anyone who goes up against the media establishment is going to have an “image problem”. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rev MLK had “image problems” as viewed by their local media.

Women have been having abortions for thousands of years; it’s never going to go away completely and is only going to be reduced through public health efforts similar to ways people have been discouraged from smoking.

Actually there has been a 2 pronged effort to reduce smoking. The main effort has been through education, public information, personalized supports offered to people trying to quit smoking, encouragement of alternatives. But the second part was legislation, laws banning smoking in many areas.

Marching and protesting doesn’t usually change people’s minds and hearts, it’s really to make the marchers feel better.

Rev. MLK found marching and protesting to be effective; not as a substitute for various personal supports, but as a way of raising awareness. On Sunday I stood alongside many other prolifers in a quiet protest. A few motorists gave us a thumbs up, some gave other gestures. But many motorists were obviously looking at the protests, perhaps wondering. It brings up issues to mind, that the establishment would prefer to be forgotten. Since you brought up Smoking, there were protests and demonstrations a few decades ago, which helped bring about awareness of this as a public health issue.

Prolifers emphasize abortion as only one part of the larger system. In “Assisted Suicide” states they are starting to put economic pressures on individuals to accept suicide. In some places, newborn babies are being allowed to starve if they have even a minor disabling condition. In Holland 98% of babies identified as having Down Syndrome are being aborted before birth - but who knows how many are being “aborted” just after birth.

In my area, the prolifers are also in the front line to offer concrete supports (housing, food, etc) to women before and after they deliver.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Actually there has been a 2 pronged effort to reduce smoking. The main effort has been through education, public information, personalized supports offered to people trying to quit smoking, encouragement of alternatives. But the second part was legislation, laws banning smoking in many areas.

Right, and I would say this approach has been pretty effective. But in contrast, the pro-life approach hinges entirely on “overturn Roe v. Wade.” The pro-life approach needs to stretch way beyond trying to manipulate the Supreme Court, which alone will never work.

Other than maybe objections from a few outliers like Rush Limbaugh, smoking bans and education about smoking has been almost entirely non-partisan, which is why it’s been found acceptable to large swaths of people. In extremely stark contrast, you couldn’t find something more partisan than a March for Life or groups like Priests for Life. The decision to turn the Pro-Life movement into a marker for conservative politics automatically alienates at least half of the populace. That approach will never ever work.

Rev. MLK found marching and protesting to be effective; not as a substitute for various personal supports, but as a way of raising awareness

Right, but go back and compare film of an MLK march with ANY March for Life. Compare the news coverage of an MLK march with EWTN’s Teresa Tomeo. March for Life is all about “fun fun fun” happy-clappy feeling good about yourself (with catered lunches and luxury coaches). The atmosphere and seriousness with which the messages are conveyed is entirely different. March for Life, overall, trivializes the issue of abortion in my view.

MLK was not marching to have fun or for his personal entertainment.

 

[XndrK]

Right, and I would say this approach has been pretty effective. But in contrast, the pro-life approach hinges entirely on “overturn Roe v. Wade.” The pro-life approach needs to stretch way beyond trying to manipulate the Supreme Court, which alone will never work.

Other than maybe objections from a few outliers like Rush Limbaugh, smoking bans and education about smoking has been almost entirely non-partisan, which is why it’s been found acceptable to large swaths of people. In extremely stark contrast, you couldn’t find something more partisan than a March for Life or groups like Priests for Life. The decision to turn the Pro-Life movement into a marker for conservative politics automatically alienates at least half of the populace. That approach will never ever work.

Right, but go back and compare film of an MLK march with ANY March for Life. Compare the news coverage of an MLK march with EWTN’s Teresa Tomeo. March for Life is all about “fun fun fun” happy-clappy feeling good about yourself (with catered lunches and luxury coaches). The atmosphere and seriousness with which the messages are conveyed is entirely different. March for Life, overall, trivializes the issue of abortion in my view.

MLK was not marching to have fun or for his personal entertainment.

An occupation on the level of, heck, Occupy Wall Street would change that, dont’cha[sup]1[/sup] think? (I was thinking Tahrir Square or Maidan originally, but that may be hard to do just because the United States is too freakin’ big.)

[sup]1[/sup]Where are you supposed to put the apostrophe in that word? Are you supposed to put multiples? I don’t know!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

An occupation on the level of, heck, Occupy Wall Street would change that, dont’cha[sup]1[/sup] think? (I was thinking Tahrir Square or Maidan originally, but that may be hard to do just because the United States is too freakin’ big.)

[sup]1[/sup]Where are you supposed to put the apostrophe in that word? Are you supposed to put multiples? I don’t know!

I think it’s really way too late for something like that, because too many people see the pro-life movement as just something “Conservative” and having little to do with love or concern for one’s neighbor. (That’s certainly not the case for all involved, but that’s how it’s perceived.) So a super-big rally would just look like super-big politics.

Do you think the Occupy Wall Street movement was effective? I’m not so sure…

I think there are huge problems in the pro-life movement with too many leaders simply being political and/or economic opportunists. I’m not sure how you fix that.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

An occupation on the level of, heck, Occupy Wall Street would change that, dont’cha[sup]1[/sup] think? (I was thinking Tahrir Square or Maidan originally, but that may be hard to do just because the United States is too freakin’ big.)

[sup]1[/sup]Where are you supposed to put the apostrophe in that word? Are you supposed to put multiples? I don’t know!

If you started a new group that was: strictly non-partisan, proclaimed and demonstrated clear love of neighbor and disavowal of political and economic power, would be willing to pray equally in front of abortion clinics AND IVF clinics and employ a consistent life ethic and concern for public health, and finally, would be willing to call out churches (of all types) on their utter disregard for the needs of pregnant/new mothers, I’d definitely join you!

 

[Latias]

Other than maybe objections from a few outliers like Rush Limbaugh, smoking bans and education about smoking has been almost entirely non-partisan, which is why it’s been found acceptable to large swaths of people. In extremely stark contrast, you couldn’t find something more partisan than a March for Life or groups like Priests for Life. The decision to turn the Pro-Life movement into a marker for conservative politics automatically alienates at least half of the populace. That approach will never ever work

I think it’s really way too late for something like that, because too many people see the pro-life movement as just something “Conservative” and having little to do with love or concern for one’s neighbor. (That’s certainly not the case for all involved, but that’s how it’s perceived.) So a super-big rally would just look like super-big politics.

Do you think the Occupy Wall Street movement was effective? I’m not so sure…

I think there are huge problems in the pro-life movement with too many leaders simply being political and/or economic opportunists. I’m not sure how you fix that.

Dave Noonan is essentially correct about the pro-life movement being merely something as a proxy for conservative politics. I personally came across some “pro-life” Catholics who defended the US policy of torture. I hope that most sensible people would find that as disgusting and indict those pro-lifers as hypocrites.

Many conservatives would find the “consistent life” platform as an unwarranted concession to liberals, and in order to maintain the purity of the pro-life movement, it must be rejected. I don’t even know any conservative (although the American Conservative does support this position) who is willing to criticize Hillary Clinton by portraying her as an imperialistic war-monger. Such an attack may make opposing her more palatable for liberals, but many pro-lifers are more concerned with denigrating liberals and signalling loyalty to their tribe.

More importantly than that moralistic indignation of the those pro-lifers, is that that support for torture is very telling of their support for US geopolitical power. In other words, that support for torture shows that they would not criticize the institutions of of US geopolitical power, such as the CIA, and they would dismiss the concerns of anyone aggrieved by US foreign policy. Furthermore, pro-lifers are more likely to condemn the Black Lives Matter movement, illustrating their support for the status quo and their contempt for those who want to challenge it.

What this shows is the general unwillingness for pro-lifers to challenge the authority of the state since they associate it with defending their interests. (The support for torture among many conservatives illustrates that they believe the government is acting in their interests and that in their minds, the victims of the state are dehumanized. The willingness to torture according to them shows the resolve of the government to use tough measures to ensure their safety from an amorphous and evil foe.) The Maidan, in contrast, challenged the authority of the state.

From that documentary on Right Sector (37:25).

The measures for the establishment of the dictatorship recall the events of the Arab Spring: a revolutionary government is set up, the regime is declared illegitimate, support is requested from the international community, and a national guard is established. And the first step is to bring all state activities to a halt by capturing government buildings throughout Ukraine.

So will this pro-life movement be willing to challenge the state and, at least, attempt to capture government buildings?

I do not know if XndrK is really concerned with the pro-life movement essentially being inextricable from conservative politics. Perhaps, the pro-life movement is about imposing conservative politics on others, and XndrK would accept this. Perhaps, he would be willing to reform the pro-life movement on pragmatic grounds. But based on his extolling of the Maidan, he is mostly concerned about success for the pro-life movement (and part of that success means the subjugation of those who disagree with the movement). The Maidan was successful despite it being opposed by half the Ukrainian population. Many of those opposed to the Maidan who do not want to be subjugated by fascists voted to be annexed by Russia or fighting for their independence or greater autonomy in Eastern Ukraine.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Right, and I would say this approach has been pretty effective. But in contrast, the pro-life approach hinges entirely on “overturn Roe v. Wade.” The pro-life approach needs to stretch way beyond trying to manipulate the Supreme Court, which alone will never work.

Other than maybe objections from a few outliers like Rush Limbaugh, smoking bans and education about smoking has been almost entirely non-partisan, which is why it’s been found acceptable to large swaths of people. In extremely stark contrast, you couldn’t find something more partisan than a March for Life or groups like Priests for Life. The decision to turn the Pro-Life movement into a marker for conservative politics automatically alienates at least half of the populace. That approach will never ever work.

Right, but go back and compare film of an MLK march with ANY March for Life. Compare the news coverage of an MLK march with EWTN’s Teresa Tomeo. March for Life is all about “fun fun fun” happy-clappy feeling good about yourself (with catered lunches and luxury coaches). The atmosphere and seriousness with which the messages are conveyed is entirely different. March for Life, overall, trivializes the issue of abortion in my view.

MLK was not marching to have fun or for his personal entertainment.

One of my granddaughters has participated in the March for Life, and it’s far from a picnic. Usually it’s horribly cold. She and her local compatriots traveled by bus from Southwest Missouri to DC. No picnic at all. And they paid their own way. No “happy-clappy” to it.

It is a shame, of course, that the Dem party has totally and utterly devoted itself to abortion on demand, leaving prolife people with no choice but to at least vote Republican. That’s not the fault of prolife people or the Repub party either one. It’s the fault of the Dem party that systematically excoriates and excludes prolife people from its ranks.

 

[XndrK]

Dave Noonan is essentially correct about the pro-life movement being merely something as a proxy for conservative politics. I personally came across some “pro-life” Catholics who defended the US policy of torture. I hope that most sensible people would find that as disgusting and indict those pro-lifers as hypocrites.

Many conservatives would find the “consistent life” platform as an unwarranted concession to liberals, and in order to maintain the purity of the pro-life movement, it must be rejected. I don’t even know any conservative (although the American Conservative does support this position) who is willing to criticize Hillary Clinton by portraying her as an imperialistic war-monger. Such an attack may make opposing her more palatable for liberals, but many pro-lifers are more concerned with denigrating liberals and signalling loyalty to their tribe.

More importantly than that moralistic indignation of the those pro-lifers, is that that support for torture is very telling of their support for US geopolitical power. In other words, that support for torture shows that they would not criticize the institutions of of US geopolitical power, such as the CIA, and they would dismiss the concerns of anyone aggrieved by US foreign policy. Furthermore, pro-lifers are more likely to condemn the Black Lives Matter movement, illustrating their support for the status quo and their contempt for those who want to challenge it.

What this shows is the general unwillingness for pro-lifers to challenge the authority of the state since they associate it with defending their interests. (The support for torture among many conservatives illustrates that they believe the government is acting in their interests and that in their minds, the victims of the state are dehumanized. The willingness to torture according to them shows the resolve of the government to use tough measures to ensure their safety from an amorphous and evil foe.) The Maidan, in contrast, challenged the authority of the state.

From that documentary on Right Sector (37:25).

So will this pro-life movement be willing to challenge the state and, at least, attempt to capture government buildings?

I do not know if XndrK is really concerned with the pro-life movement essentially being inextricable from conservative politics. Perhaps, the pro-life movement is about imposing conservative politics on others, and XndrK would accept this. Perhaps, he would be willing to reform the pro-life movement on pragmatic grounds. But based on his extolling of the Maidan, he is mostly concerned about success for the pro-life movement (and part of that success means the subjugation of those who disagree with the movement). The Maidan was successful despite it being opposed by half the Ukrainian population. Many of those opposed to the Maidan who do not want to be subjugated by fascists voted to be annexed by Russia or fighting for their independence or greater autonomy in Eastern Ukraine.

My plan is to make a movement with one goal: end legally-sanctioned abortion in the United States. All others are secondary. Non-partisan, non-credal (if that’s the word), one goal: bring it down.

I’d make it a Catholic Answers group (I even have a catchy name for it), but that would tie it too closely with the Church, which is not what I’m going for.

I think the main reason Occupy Wall Street failed is because they never clearly defined what success was. The opening poster read “What Is Our One Demand?” and they never decided. A series of pro-life demonstrations would have the advantage of a clearly-defined goal.

Also, a quick note: Maidan was supported by a lot of people, most of whom were for closer ties to the West, not isolationism. The protests started when the Ukrainian government at the time backed off from a deal with the European Union, and last I checked, pro-EU protests are about as non-nationalist as you can get.

But I digress.