updated: A pro-life response to the Feministe blog

A friend on Facebook linked to this article at Feministe, with the provocative title,
“Pro-Lifers” Oppose Measures That Decrease the Abortion Rate. So I responded. Be warned, the conversation is pretty rough. Here is what I wrote.
I looked at the National Right to Life link. They list the 23% category as "feels" unable to afford a baby. Pro-life clinics usually are able to show or find or produce the essentials to afford a baby. CareNet is one group I am familiar with. Charities are often helpful as well as WIC. Adoption is another method to address concerns of affordability. Since the mother considering abortion does not want the child anyway, perhaps adoption will not be difficult. When the baby is handed over, affordability as an issue goes away.

The Catholics in Alliance study has questionable conclusions from their data. One critical response can be found by Michael New, PhD, at Public discourse.

According the the Guttmacher Institute, the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in Europe, yet it's legal restrictions might not be attractive to the writers of the Feministe blog. I would welcome the restrictions the Netherlands has in our own country. Regarding improved social services in our own country, we tried that for 40 years, it was called welfare. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton who eliminated welfare as we knew it in the 90's yet still claims abortion rates fell under his administration. They fell under Bush's as well. So bringing back welfare as we knew it then might not be the answer to the problems.

In the meantime, we still feel that babies in the womb should have the same human rights the out of womb babies have and their mothers, which is why, there is little satisfaction on our side until those babies have those rights.

Update: a response in USA Today

There is no evidence that increasing social programs — such as low-cost health care and day care, college grants and maternity homes — will impact a woman's abortion decision. It is rare in our experience to find a woman who says the reason she is choosing abortion is that she doesn't have day care, or that she'd rather go to college.

Those of us who have spent years outside abortion clinics, talking with abortion-bound women, are keenly aware of what leads women there. Often, the woman feels she has no choice because someone important in her life refuses to support a decision to keep the baby.

More than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. are ready to help a woman with material needs, emotional support, counseling and medical care. Anyone who wants to stop abortion should promote these centers.

I challenge anyone who wants to help pregnant women to actually go to an abortion clinic. You'll see the young girl who doesn't want an abortion, but whose family doesn't want to be "burdened" with a baby. She's not making her own choice. She is making someone else's choice. Or the young mother whose husband doesn't want their child. Whose choice is she making?

HT: Suzy B blog

Comments

lady.shiv said…
Why would we not want the restrictions they have on abortion? 24 weeks (or viability, which is already the law here), a waiting period and counseling? Do you think that feminists just want women to be having abortion willy-nilly? No.

And there are different ways for welfare to work. It's not that cut and dry.

And just because a woman doesn't want a child doesn't mean that she wouldn't naturally bond with it after carrying it for nine months. Thinking that adoption for them would be "easy" is incredibly ignorant.
John Umland said…
Hi
thanks for commenting. feministe hasn't posted my comment yet. i recommend this list to see how many states have no restrictions on abortion due to viability. http://law.jrank.org/pages/11829/Abortion-State-Statutes.html

even NARAL doesn't like viability limits in your state very much http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/pennsylvania.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=3&ssumID=2800

it would be great if women naturally bonded with their babies, which is why it would be great if abortion were not legal because then more children would have the time to convince their mothers they are worth loving. I made that statement provocatively, and I'm glad it provoked you.

I think a great study would be to ask how many mothers who considered abortion but didn't do it regret their decision. my bet that number is extremely low.

God is good
jpu
lady.shiv said…
"I think a great study would be to ask how many mothers who considered abortion but didn't do it regret their decision. my bet that number is extremely low. "

Really? You're giving people too much credit. Come to Philadelphia, I'd find you thousands of mothers who'd tell you otherwise.
John Umland said…
In itself it's a sick question. Would a parent be likely to say "I wish my kid was dead" ? If you know those women, you need to bring them good news. Tell them about Jesus.
God is good
jpu
Jeff said…
"Do you think that feminists just want women to be having abortion willy-nilly? No."

And I do agree that is the Feminist's view; for the most part. But ... give someone the "right" to murder their unborn child, a child that would be admittedly difficult to give up for adoption once born; and in steps a multi-million dollar corporation like Planned Parenthood to exploit these inconvenient pregnancies for their profit. Who pays? Well, the unborn baby goes straight to be with our Father, so although a tragic end; and a total waste of a human life's potential, these babies are in good hands.

So who pays? The facts are that 85% of post abortion mothers suffer long term negative psychological effects of their decision in one form or another; so she pays. But that's her "right", right?

As far as the regret not to abort a child, I don't care if it's Philadelphia or Corinth, there are just not that many psychopaths; and that's what they would have to be, in either city. I side up with John and continue to give them more credit than they deserve.

Peace, Jeff

Popular Posts