I read over the blog post on losing faith
in the pro-life movement (How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement” by Libby Anne). I can see some of the points made, but ultimately found some of them
based on a particular subset of the pro-life movement and others I simply did
not find convincing.
Economics. The
economics behind abortion is the author’s final point, but I will list it first
because on this point we are in strong agreement. The primary pressure turning people
towards abortion is economics- if a woman must work to earn income to sustain
herself or her family, then she cannot easily afford to be pregnant; if
pregnancy will hamper career advancement, she cannot easily afford to be pregnant;
if a woman will be kicked out of school for getting pregnant, she cannot easily
afford to be pregnant. And these
pressures should be alleviated if we are to be truly pro-life. That is why being pro-life must be bigger than
just outlawing abortion. Pro-life
advocates should be saying FMLA is a great start but needs to be stronger and
provide paid time off. Employers should be more flexible with parents-
telecommuting, flexible hours, allowing children in (safe) workplaces,
subsidizing childcare, etc. ObamaCare™ should
be applauded by pro-lifers for reducing the demand for abortion through providing
contraceptives and mandating a minimal amount of health care (but unfortunately
many pro-life advocates are blinded by partisanship). Finding ways to create
jobs that can support a family should be a top priority of any pro-life
politician.
And many pro-life ministries deal with those economic
realities. For example, Mom’s House (http://www.momshouse.org/) provides free
child care and career counseling to single parents who chose life and are
furthering their education. Susquehanna
Valley Pregnancy Services (http://svps.org/Services.aspx)
provides education on adoption, local support services (medical care, financial
services, etc.), parenting classes, financial counseling, etc. YWAM’s Adoption Ministry (http://adoptionministry.net/node/73)
provides comfortable residential housing, academic tutoring, and medical care
so that women who do not wish to keep their babies but wish to give them up for
adoption can have a supportive and comfortable environment.
Abortion laws do
not reduce abortions. Not able to read the study the author
referenced since it is not linked to, I can only go by what she summarized and
a similar WHO study summarized in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/abortion-worldwide-rate-stopped-falling-after-2003-researchers-cite-scarcity-of-contraception.html?ref=worldhealthorganization). In both cases another correlation (and a more
likely causation) is to be found and that is the link between abortion rates
and economics/industrialization/age demographics. (In these studies, the term “rate”
is abortions per # of women, not abortions per # of pregnancies.) US and Western Europe have low rates while
Latin America and Africa have higher rates and of all of Africa, South Africa (the
most industrialized) has the lowest rate in Africa. However, the more industrialized and
economically well off a nation is, the more access to birth control there is,
the more incentive to use birth control and keep families small, the better the
education system is (and more likely the population is to be educated about birth
control), the more likely public assistance is available to provide income for
a woman who keeps her baby, and age demographics shift from a younger, more
fertile population towards a older, less fertile population.
Abortion laws cause women to put their lives at risk. This is true in the same way that banning pharmaceutical
companies from selling cocaine or meth leads to people poisoning themselves
with black market versions containing who knows what. But unlike that rather crude comparison,
women are subject to many forces which direct them to abortions. The primary pressure is economics- if a woman must
work to earn income to sustain herself or her family, then she cannot easily
afford to be pregnant; if pregnancy will hamper career advancement, she cannot
easily afford to be pregnant; if a woman will be kicked out of school for
getting pregnant, she cannot easily afford to be pregnant. And these pressures should be alleviated if
we are to be truly pro-life. That is why
being pro-life must be bigger than just outlawing abortion. (See Economics.)
Contraception.
I am all for contraception.
People are going to have sex whether contraception is available or
not. It is better we educate and make
contraception available than use abortion as contraception. We should not start confusing contraception
with abortion. They are two different
subjects. I understand that Catholic
pro-life arguments often blend the two because they feel strongly about
both. But as the author pointed out, most
contraceptives do not cause miscarriages.
Zygotes and the supposed lack of concern regarding them. When my wife and I had 3 miscarriages, all
within the first trimester, we did not just lose a collection of cells we had
no feelings for as the author accuses.
We lost 3 children whom we mourned deeply and still do. If you ask just about anyone who has lost a
baby through miscarriage they will share similar feelings. There has been extensive research by the
medical community to help prevent miscarriages.
In our case it was a simple hormonal imbalance that prevented proper
implantation. Once this was corrected
our next daughter was able to fully develop and she is a source of joy.
No comments:
Post a Comment