How Should We Define Pro-Life?

[Tyr]

Newsweek
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:22 PM

Earlier this week, Sarah Kliff wrote a story about the new political climate and how it changes pro-life strategy. "The election of a pro-choice administration and a Democratic Congress has divided the pro-life movement," Sarah writes, "between those who are preparing for the fight of their lives [against Roe v. Wade] and those who see an opportunity to redefine what it means to be pro-life [by focusing on reduction strategies]."

Of course, abortion stories are controversial. So, along with the 300 comments that populate the forum, National Right to Life has put a hit out on Sarah Kliff, calling her such wonderful things as "uneducated." (She's not.)

In their long essay, they accuse our piece of, essentially, making up a pro-life strategy that they say doesn't exist, squaring the blame on Sarah for saying that groups of people are working together when they actually aren't. Click above to read their essay, which ends with this line: "There will be no end to stories [like Newsweek's].Their objective is to convince us that people and organizations, whose entire reason for existence is to multiply the number of abortions, have suddenly seen the bipartisan/compromise/common ground light."

Because of this, I asked Sarah to go back through her reporting and respond to the criticism. Here's her take:

As I write in my story, even when you arrive at the “common ground” of abortion politics, there are complex fault lines to navigate. The pro-life movement is not giving up their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade - nor does my story suggest that they should. There are, however, some activists and legislators pursuing additional strategies, including the abortion reduction legislation that I explore in this story. One of the complexities to navigate here is language: what defines an 'abortion reduction' strategy? Restricting access to clinics that provide abortion has been one way the pro-life movement has attempted to reduce abortion in the United States.

Now, some pro-life legislators and activists are considering a different definition: reducing the need for abortion through socioeconomic supports. The Support Pregnant Women Act is a good example of this. The legislation aims to reduce abortion through, among other provisions, better Medicaid assistance and more resources for parenting students. It has received support from many legislators with strong pro-life records, including Chris Smith (R-NJ) who spoke at the March for Life I attended. The pro-life leaders I spoke with didn't see these strategies as forcing activists to ‘give up the fight to pass legislation,' but another way to pursue a pro-life agenda.
​

 

[karrie]

In my opinion, the only true way to affect change in the number of abortions performed, is exactly along the lines the article mentions.... help reduce the need for them.

Sex education
Financial assistance
Increase adoption advocacy and support
Work to reduce the stigma of unplanned pregnancy (no, it's not a disease)


The way many pro-lifers go about attempting to change it, is through shame and fear, and they don't seem to realize that by doing so, they are perpetuating the social over dramatization of unplanned pregnancy, that drives so many women to abort in the first place.

 

[Tyr]

In my opinion, the only true way to affect change in the number of abortions performed, is exactly along the lines the article mentions.... help reduce the need for them.

Sex education
Financial assistance
Increase adoption advocacy and support
Work to reduce the stigma of unplanned pregnancy (no, it's not a disease)


The way many pro-lifers go about attempting to change it, is through shame and fear, and they don't seem to realize that by doing so, they are perpetuating the social over dramatization of unplanned pregnancy, that drives so many women to abort in the first place.

that's exactgly right. Interestingly the highest rate of "illegal" abortions per capita is in staunchly Catholic Central and South America

 

[Scott Free]

The number of abortions performed could be changed by taking away people’s right to privacy. This way the state could dictate what women must do with their bodies.

Another way is through totalitarian measures such as public education and private one on one counselling. Again this means privacy is violated but not to the same extent as the above solution.

I think both solutions are terribly evil.

The other option is for people to mind their own ****ing business and accept that with liberty come certain hazards, such as people might not always choose the path for themselves that you would choose for them. Solace can be found in the fact that the pro lifers can still hold their opinion and not have abortions if they so whish. This might seem like a small point but consider the eugenics programs of the 30's where women were sterilized and abortions performed under duress.

My point is that the only solution is to respect people’s privacy and that they are capable of charting their own lives as you are yours. There is always someone somewhere that would object to whatever it is your doing.

 

[karrie]

Has there ever been a society that functions the way you describe Scott?

I ask because it seems to be against most social structures I can think of, to not impose some moral order on the people who live within communities. Sure, ours may take it to grand heights, but, I'm curious if there's ever been a total flip side of the coin?

 

[Spade]

Government is a contract between those in power with those who are ruled. For the benefits of government, citizens abandon freedom. The trick is to maximize the former and minimize the latter. I am not certain we Canadians have it right yet.

But ideally, I'm with Scott

 

[Cannuck]

My point is that the only solution is to respect people’s privacy and that they are capable of charting their own lives as you are yours.

That makes sense until you understand that the pro-life people believe the child is a human being with all the rights that go along with that. To them, telling them to mind their own business is the same as telling them to mind their own business whenever or wherever somebody is being murdered. This issue will never go away until the issue of when life begins is finally decided upon. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Scott Free]

Has there ever been a society that functions the way you describe Scott?

The way I describe? You mean one that respects peoples privacy and liberty?

No there hasn't to my knowledge. France probably comes the closest.

I ask because it seems to be against most social structures I can think of, to not impose some moral order on the people who live within communities.

Agreed, most social structures use violence to impose a moral code, often whatever is economically preferable - this is popular here in Canada, for example: we shouldn't smoke because it costs the health care system money; never mind that we are the health care system! This is tyranny of the masses on one hand and fascism (see Hitlers war on cancer) on the other.

Now imagine a society that gained order by enforcing liberty? That is making sure that whatever you do does not violate someone else's liberty. What we have today are dictates that impose elite liberty. It is well masked as protecting our liberty but that is a laughable proposition on closer examination. we have only replaced our kings with industry, corporations and a political elite.

Sure, ours may take it to grand heights, but, I'm curious if there's ever been a total flip side of the coin?

I don't think we take anything to a grand height. The US constitution was a pitiful attempt. Canada is even worse now that we have a charter of rights and a constitution. As I said: France comes closest IMO.

 

[Spade]

We may not agree when life begins, but it is clearer (well not totally) when it ends. To be consistent, the pro lifers must abjure war and capital punishment.

 

[Cannuck]

France probably comes the closest.

Have you lived in France?

 

[Goober]

We may not agree when life begins, but it is clearer (well not totally) when it ends. To be consistent, the pro lifers must abjure war and capital punishment.

Spade – Where is the linkage for that belief?

 

[karrie]

The way I describe? You mean one that respects peoples privacy and liberty?

No there hasn't to my knowledge. France probably comes the closest.



Agreed, most social structures use violence to impose a moral code, often whatever is economically preferable - this is popular here in Canada, for example: we shouldn't smoke because it costs the health care system money; never mind that we are the health care system! This is tyranny of the masses on one hand and fascism (see Hitlers war on cancer) on the other.

Now imagine a society that gained order by enforcing liberty? That is making sure that whatever you do does not violate someone else's liberty. What we have today are dictates that impose elite liberty. It is well masked as protecting our liberty but that is a laughable proposition on closer examination. we have only replaced our kings with industry, corporations and a political elite.

What you say makes a certain amount of sense Scott. But, France will not be the one to look to for long. Many of the nanny state issues that bother you about Canada will be foisted on France as well due to the EU.

I think Cannuck hit the nail on the head though... pro-life tend to feel very passionately that human life deserves protection.

And with many other of the erosions of personal liberty, children and public safety are at the forefront of the arguments.

 

[Spade]

Spade – Where is the linkage for that belief?

Judaic- Christian - Islamic tenets.

 

[Cannuck]

We may not agree when life begins, but it is clearer (well not totally) when it ends. To be consistent, the pro lifers must abjure war and capital punishment.

Capital punishment is not the same thing as taking the life of the innocent child...at least not to many pro-lifers.

 

[Scott Free]

What you say makes a certain amount of sense Scott. But, France will not be the one to look to for long. Many of the nanny state issues that bother you about Canada will be foisted on France as well due to the EU.

Absolutely, but I didn't mean their government I meant their people and their resistance to the mechanisms of control. The people make the country but if they get lazy, complacent and distracted they can hand it to the power elite, which is why the elite do everything in their power to make us so.

And with many other of the erosions of personal liberty, children and public safety are at the forefront of the arguments.

Absolutely, because we are prone to probabilistic argument using consensus evidence that we will inevitably end up in a totalitarian nanny state. It is because of our abject ignorance (on whole) that this is even possible.

 

[Spade]

Capital punishment is not the same thing as taking the life of the innocent child...at least not to many pro-lifers.

Inconsistency detracts from their position.

 

[Cannuck]

Inconsistency detracts from their position.

That's a common problem.

 

[Goober]

Judaic- Christian - Islamic tenets.

Oh yes the Big 10 – But I am sure that these tenets have the right of self preservation when attacked? Yes – No – maybe?

 

[Goober]

Judaic- Christian - Islamic tenets.

Oh yes the Big 10 – But I am sure that these tenets have the right of self preservation when attacked? Yes – No – maybe?

Spade – Next time you are out and about – look for the mother with the child and think of an abortion –
While it is the women’s right – Abortion is revolting – Regardless of position it is revolting.

 

[Spade]

Oh yes the Big 10 – But I am sure that these tenets have the right of self preservation when attacked? Yes – No – maybe?

The over-riding instinct in all life (human or otherwise) is to live and to protect its young. So, nothing is ever all dark or crystal clear. But judgement and balance are human qualifiers.