Exactly *Which* Party Really Cares about Pregnant Women?

On a Facebook thread, there was a discussion about the GOP being pro-life. A friend of a friend who had apparently experienced a crisis pregnancy and chose to abort wrote an empassioned comment. She felt that the GOP was a judgmental crowd that shamed women who experience such a pregnancy, relegating them to a life on welfare. She praised Planned Parenthood for offering "all choices."

She also said she found it amazing that conservatives cry foul when their independent choices are limited, but limit the reproductive choices of others.

This was my response:　

    L -- I'm so sorry you experienced the tragedy of abortion.

　I too had an unplanned pregnancy... I spent my senior year at North Park pregnant, and delivered my daughter 4 days after graduation.

　NP is a pretty conservative community (altho Swedes are rather progressive) and I was very nervous about the reaction I'd get. I was overwhelmed with how supportive every single person there was. Everyone said how great it was that I was having my baby.

　The only negative reactions I had were from people I knew who were in favor of abortion. They told me I was ruining my life (and my baby's father's life) and couldn't see why I wasn't aborting. So much for supporting choice.

　It's not the GOP that is telling women that they must give up everything -- on campuses and in office buildings across America it is liberals who sneer at women who get pregnant and actually want them to just go away -- they can't be bothered with the problems pregnant women "choose" to have.

　Conservatives don't offer choices? There's just one they don't offer -- the one that has not made life better for women despite all its promises. Instead they offer health care thru pregnancy and beyond, baby care items, legal services to help get child support or to sue for wrongful termination/discrimination in the workplace. They are on the front lines demanding that universities provide services for pregnant and parenting students. And of course, they offer caring adoption services.

　As a member of Feminists for Life for over 25 years, I have heard time and again and again how a woman in a crisis who wanted to have her child was spurned by institutions advocating "choice."

　The only choice that liberals care about is abortion. PP'hood will help you pay for an abortion bec they make billions, and they'll give you a pamphlet about breast cancer bec a foundation is paying them to. Welfare is a system that Dems want to keep people in -- Reps want to help women get out of it.

　Now it sounds like maybe you had a personal experience where someone who was conservative shamed you -- I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- there is a small sector of rigid types who try to shame women. But it is a myth (perpetuated by those who are pro-abortion to advance their agenda) that the GOP is predominantly made up of those rigid types.

　Believe me I have had bones to pick with the GOP -- e.g. the Family Leave Act -- they favored the business lobbyists too much. But they have come around. I and the many women (and men) I know or have met who had an unplanned child just did not experience what you describe from conservatives.

　It is amazing to me that the DNC -- who claims to be the champion of the weak, and who says that women can do anything -- see nothing wrong with killing the most innocent and vulnerable at any gestation in the womb or leaving them to die on the table (esp'ly those with defects), and believe that oppressing the preborn is necessary for women to be "equal."

　Pro-life feminists like me believe that every woman and every child, no matter what their circumstance, deserves every chance and unconditional support to live the best life they can.

"L" did not respond, but I was pleasantly surprised that I received positive responses from a couple of folks who support abortion rights. Not saying they agreed with everything I said, or that I changed their minds much if at all, but at least they were open to another point of view that perhaps they don't run across every day.

Comments

[Ceecee]

Articles like this make me glad that I switched from the Democrats to the Republican party.

[Ceecee]

How you can claim to be pro-choice and sneer at a woman who wants to give birth to her baby, is a mystery to me.

[ChunLing]

I have....

I know that you think that I'm evil. And you are correct to think so, though your reasons are less than the best. So I'll be honest.

I understand that abortion is morally wrong, but that's not why I oppose legal, pervasive abortion.

My real motive for opposing easy abortion is because there's nothing remotely aesthetically pleasing about women killing their babies unless they undergo great hardship before and after doing so. It's not a proper tragedy if the heroine can even pretend that she's living happily ever after, and she's not even a heroine if she doesn't have to struggle.

I was just remembering one of the most beautiful memories I have. To create that memory for me cost some poor woman her soul. I ain't about to give it back, neither. I am a wicked, wicked man (there are many who would dispute whether I'm still human at all...few who would dispute the wickedness).

I do find great beauty in women going through the sacrifice and struggle to nurture and raise their children rather than kill them. My aesthetics aren't disinterestedly evil or anything...an even more beautiful memory is about a woman giving the uttermost for her child, and then losing that child, and going on to devote her remaining life to another (ungrateful, bratty, generally not very wonderful) child. That such things happen every moment of every day in this world is a very important source of joy to me.

But not because of the goodness of it. Only because such things are beautiful to me.

Women killing their children...can only be beautiful by being exceptional. If it's commonplace and accepted...it's a huge waste of aesthetic potential. So there you have it. It's still not the best reason to think ill of me, but I'm not ready to give you any better just now.

[Rand Larson]

Very poignant! I was moved at the honesty of your feelings especially knowing the NP community. So many people voice views that there actions don't back up, in your case the sanctity of life won out over any uncomfortable feelings you may have had. Truth is that if everyone that had sex at NP had gotten pregnant you would have had a lot of classmates walking with you.

I thank God for your decision to respect the gift of life!

Rand

[Pat]

I truly wish I could get behind the pro-life argument. No doubt, the criticism you faced was unjustified and even cruel, but I don't know where the middle ground is. As a pro-choicer, yes, I mourn for the lost life, but I also feel that any woman who loses her life due to a botched abortion is just as much a tragedy.

There was a study released and published just this week -- Guttmacher, I believe -- that stated that outlawing abortions does not reduce the number of abortions sought. It also stated that women who live in countries where access to abortion is restricted are still dying at the hands of back-alley abortionists at an alarming rate.

The answer the way I see it? More access to the financial support and health care that expectant mothers -- especially expectant mothers who live in poverty -- need so that they can have confidence in their ability to care for the child. Perhaps there are many Conservative-aligned groups who do offer these things, but as a national and collective voice, Conservatives just don't seem to convey such concern. The Conservative position seems to be more about punishing "lazy women on welfare" and mourning the loss of a fetus or embryo without any concern mentioned for the millions of children who made it into this world but live in poverty -- and do without proper health care -- right in our own backyards.

I subscribe to the Progressive movement's position on reducing abortions, but to Conservatives I'm acquainted with, it's unacceptable because abortions are to be outlawed at any and all costs.

[Colette Moran]

I'm sorry, *I* can't understand anyone who thinks abortion should be allowed bec they fear back-alley procedures.

Why can't we choose to save over a million pre-born lives *and* any lives that may be lost due to the procedure, legal or otherwise? Women are still dying bec of the inherent danger of this unnecessary procedure. (And yes, women can die from a "normal" pregnancy, but show me a single *healthy* woman that had an abortion bec she was concerned about dying from continuing the pregnancy.)

Tall order? Certainly. Massive effort to change the way things are? Definitely.

But we do not accept beatings just because they happen anyway, why should we accept murder? In fact, there is no other clearly wrong action that we say -- oh well, it's gonna happen anyway, may as well make it safe.

Hey -- let's give wife-beaters boxing gloves -- that'll make it safer. Let's give child molesters condoms, that'll at least prevent some pregnancies and diseases -- but heck we can't stop them, so why not just make it legal? Because bottom line: it is wrong!

Yes, we should do all that we need to do to make life better for moms and children in need -- but abortion does not. It has not cured any single ill, and left millions upon millions of dead bodies and wounded women in its wake.

Progressives have been talking about reducing abortion for years -- the huge number has only gone down slightly bec of prosperous times and a slight change in the attitude of young women about standing up and saying that there's nothing to be ashamed of. Now with a bad economy, anecdotal reports say the number is on the rise again.

And who are these people talking about "lazy welfare moms"? You know them personally? If so, they are idiots, but it is a totally separate issue. Not a single conservative I know has "no concern" for those living in poverty. They volunteer at soup kitchens and shelters and food pantries and free shot clinics and build houses-- the caricature of the heartless conservative is a myth that liberals perpetuate rather than argue the real issues.

The people I know who are truly giving women options are those who help the vast majority of women (over 70% according to Guttmacher) who don't really want to have the abortion but feel they have no other choice -- they are the pro-lifers who know that the baby is not the problem, and that there is a better way. They help women find those solutions, not just leave them high and dry with "Well, it's your choice."

It's not about outlawing or restricting -- or simply trying to reduce the number -- it's about preserving a child's right to life and not putting women and children at odds. It's about finding the solutions for both.

[Colette Moran]

And might I add this:

"Spinning an Abortion Study [Michael J. New]

This week the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) released a report entitled “Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress.” The media have been hard at work spinning its findings. Both the Associated Press and USA Today have reported the finding that abortion rates in countries with protective abortion laws are similar to abortion rates in countries with permissive laws — hinting strongly that protective legislation does little to protect unborn children. The BBC was even more blunt, running an article with the headline “Bans ‘do not cut abortion rate.’”

However, the media’s analysis is faulty. Most of the countries where abortion is prohibited are in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. These countries have low per capita income and a higher incidence of social pathologies that may increase the perceived need for abortion. This nuance is not picked up in any of the media coverage of the AGI report.

Interestingly, AGI has also released research that demonstrates the effectiveness of pro-life laws. This summer it released a literature review showing that 20 of 24 studies found that public funding of abortion increased abortion rates. Other AGI research has demonstrated that parental-involvement laws and well-designed informed-consent laws also reduce the incidence of abortion. Unfortunately, research like that typically receives scant attention from the mainstream media."

[ChunLing]

Ah, back to the nitty-gritty of health statistics.

From a public health standpoint, the need is to aggressively limit extra-marital sexual activity. If there's any statistically significant demand for abortion at all, then you aren't properly discouraging extra-marital sex. Discussing the public health implications of legal abortion is a bit like arguing over whether to subsidize cigars as a way of reducing lung cancer...except that actually might work.

Obviously, legal abortion sends the message that extra-marital sex is considered so entirely unavoidable that women should be permitted to kill their babies because there is simply no possible alternative to being forced into reproductive slavery. Which, surprise surprise, tends to increase the acceptance and tolerance of extra-marital sex, particularly among girls who might otherwise wish to reserve sexual activity for marriage. Given that, in the absence of socialization in either direction, young women have a natural tendency towards monogamy (this tendency doesn't begin to reverse itself until a woman's last fertile decade), it would be relatively easy to eliminate virtually all need for abortion by appropriately empowering young women to be capable of resisting unwanted sexual advances and giving them the message that it was socially expected that they do so.

I favor arming young women with high-lethality weapons and encouraging their use in "socially difficult" situations. Personal aesthetics, perhaps, but a young woman laying a bit of 'smite' on a sexual predator beats the hell out of an abortion any day in my book. Also, young women smiting predators has a strong selective effect in favor of gentlemanly behavior among young men.

There's the old-fashioned (pre-personal firearm technology) idea of having a young woman's male relatives act on her behalf in such matters, but it involves the unfortunate necessity of fathers/brothers accompanying a young woman everywhere, which gets tiresome pretty quick. Pistols do not get bored, and they don't mind being accessorized.

There's also the use of centralized government authority, but that's even worse. Particularly since the very fact that someone thinks it the proper role of government to chaperon a girl about all the time strongly suggests that they are amenable to thinking it the proper role of government to "prepare" her for sexual activity. I think they used to call that...Droit du signor, or something. Ick.

Well, except that's pretty much the direction that centralized governments seem to like to take things. One has to love the new 'egalitarian' systems, where if a sexual predator isn't lucky enough to be born into the role of 'signor' a bit of hard work can secure the position. Oh yeah, I'm totally going to trust my children to them.

[Pat]

You brought out the ol' National Review Online article. However, readers can go straight to the Guttmacher Website and read this:

"The decline in worldwide abortion occurred alongside a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. The key difference is safety—illegal, clandestine abortions cause significant harm to women, especially in developing countries. The report, “Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress,” recommends making modern contraceptives available to all women who want them, expanding access to legal abortion and improving postabortion care."

[Pat]

Also, our exchange revealed a very poignant impasse in the pro-choice/pro-life give-and-take: Apparently, pro-lifers equate women who choose abortions with child molesters, wife batterers, and murderers. Pro-choicers do not. I know more than one woman who has chosen abortion. Do I think it's a sad choice? Sure. Do I view these women as murderers? Absolutely not.

[ChunLing]

I know a woman who murdered her own mother. I also know she doesn't consider herself a murderer. I think you would agree with her.

But I don't.

[Pat]

ChunLing, after posting this BS-ridden drivel --

"I was just remembering one of the most beautiful memories I have. To create that memory for me cost some poor woman her soul. I ain't about to give it back, neither. I am a wicked, wicked man (there are many who would dispute whether I'm still human at all...few who would dispute the wickedness)" --

you try to take the moral high road?

Give me a break. But before you give me that break, let's not forget this bit of philosophical flotsam:

"Women killing their children...can only be beautiful by being exceptional. If it's commonplace and accepted...it's a huge waste of aesthetic potential."

Speaks for itself.

[ChunLing]

You think that identifying a woman (whom I don't even like) as a murderer for murdering her mother (whom I also didn't like) is an attempt "to take the moral high road?"

Wow. I mean, I think I'm pretty evil, but obviously you've got far lower standards for "good" than I previously imagined.

I at least think that the deaths of tiny babies and moral degradation of their mothers is generally bad enough that some significant benefit has to accrue to justify it. Sure, I can't go with the "No, never! Such things must not happen!" crowd. I'm not good enough for that. But at least I understand that there is a loss involved here.

I have to bow to your complete moral inversion...given the upside-down nature of your thinking, I think that you can imagine any suppressed snorting to be a sign of my sincere admiration.

[Pat]

whatever...

[ergo baby carrier]

Progressives have been talking about reducing abortion for years -- the huge number has only gone down slightly bec of prosperous times and a slight change in the attitude of young women about standing up and saying that there's nothing to be ashamed of. Now with a bad economy, anecdotal reports say the number is on the rise again.