Amazing love
As Sanctity of Human Life Week draws to a close, I have been reflecting a lot on pro-life issues. One thought that I keep returning to is how much I admire pro-life women. These women give their time and energy not only to take a public stand against abortion, but also to volunteer as peer counselors and other staff at crisis pregnancy centers. In addition to the usual consequences of involving oneself in a controversial issue, they risk scorn and ridicule from self-appointed guardians of “women’s rights.”
Ironically, though, some of the most notable early feminists were pro-life. Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote:
When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.
Susan B. Anthony viewed abortion as serving the interests of selfish or predatory men:
Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!
Beyond the activists and the historic icons, there is another group of women whose deeds are awe-inspiring. I am referring to those women who become pregnant as a result of rape and choose to carry the child to term. I once read an article profiling a few such women, but I could not find it online. Many of them give the children up for adoption, but some choose to keep them. In either case, they considered their choice to be the ultimate triumph over their rapist. What words can be used to describe a person who makes such a choice? I can think of only one…hero.
22 Responses to “Amazing love”
I’m not sure I understand this post. Who among us, except for perhaps the psychotic, aren’t both pro-life and anti-abortion?
greg
Let Us Mourn – 32 years of Death
In the United States, over 45 million pre-born boys and girls have been killed since the Jan. 22, 1973 Supreme Court Decision that legalized abortion. Each year, nearly 20,000 abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy. Our most…
Huh? Roughly 50% of the population.
50% of what population? I’m a secular humanist liberal atheist and I can honestly say that I know personally not a single person who is either anti-life or pro-abortion; much less both.
More specifics, please.
greg
You wrote, “Who among us, except for perhaps the psychotic, aren’t both pro-life and anti-abortion?” I am pro-life, and therefore by extension I’m anti-abortion. I don’t understand why that’s so confusing.
I think, though I’m not sure, that Eric meant the percentage of the country that considers itself strictly pro-life, and thus not at all “pro-abortion”. But I’m doubtful (but willing to be show otherwise) that the strict no-abortion-ever line polls at anywhere near 50%.
I think Greg just mis-typed in his first comment and meant something else.
No miss-type. I’m still looking for those among us who are anti-life and/or pro-abortion. If they don’t exist then it strikes me that the original column is irrelevant.
On the other hand, if there are really people (monsters might be a better term) who are anti-life and/or pro-abortion then maybe you guys could give me a concrete example of one, or two? Like a name, or something?
greg
Gregory,
How about all the women who get abortions? Wouldn’t you consider them pro-abortion? What about doctors who perform these abortions? What about the millions of people who support the right of women to have abortions? I personally find abortion a foul and disgusting practice, but I’m not sure if I consider the millions of people I just described as “psychotic”. We are all morally responsible for abortion since we live in a society that permits it. Are we all psychotic?
I don’t understand Gregory’s question. I know many staunchly pro-choice women. Aren’t they inherently pro-abortion? While I would not lightly characterize them as anti-life, I am all too familiar with their position that a right to abortion should be protected. Do we live in the same America?
Webster’s defines the preposition “pro” as denoting “in favor of.”
I know of no individual who is, all else being equal, “in favor of” an abortion just as I know of no individual, again all else being equal, who is in favor of (pro-) a triple bypass operation — even those people who have had the procedure performed.
And, no, I don’t believe that “all the women” who have had abortions are inherently “pro abortion” any more than I believe that late-stage diabetics are inherently pro-amputation.
Finally, I’m aggressively pro-life (in that I am aggressively in favor of life, of all kinds). What that has to do with my feelings on abortion, or Roe v. Wade is beyond me.
greg
I think I understand what Greg is doing — I think he is saying that people do not tend to be opposed to life or categorically in favor of abortion (they wouldn’t tell every woman they meet, “Hey, if you’ve never had an abortion, you really need to try it sometime”). However, if that is what he is saying, that is a little like pointing out that people who are in favor of the death penalty are not always in favor of the death penalty, and would actually prefer a sudden end to all murder, so that the death penalty would not be needed.
Karl is exactly right. I would never refer to those who believe that capital punishment is a sometimes necessary evil as “pro-death” just for cheap rhetorical points. It’s divisive, unnecessary, and ultimately harmful to both sides of the debate.
All else being equal, I would like there to be fewer abortions, not more. In no way then can I be considered “pro abortion” even though I may differ with some from ITA about specifics such as [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] (or I may not, I may surprise you).
And I find it simply offensive that some are attempting to bifurcate the nation into those who are “pro life” and those who are (assumedly) anti-life. I’ll put up my track record against anyone else’s any time.
greg
The complexities of the situation as detailed by Greg quickly fall to the wayside as conservative pundits turn this issue into yet another black/white right/wrong fiasco.
I know several women who’ve had abortions, as I’m sure many people reading this do (though perhaps they haven’t told you because of the negative associations) and none of them are happy about it. They live with that decision every day, and I’m sure they in no way consider themselves anti-life. It’s just more cheap rhetoric.
Legislation can’t change social realities in an open, heterogenous, pluralistic society, and the quest to have it do so only causes the extreme rifts that we see in America today.
Don’t leave Planned Parenthood out of the discussion-a very large business who makes millions off of killing human beings. Those who support these killers would not be considered pro-life nor would their financial supporters in the various governments who feed our tax dollars to them.
Thanks for that stimulating and informative commentary, Anonymous. It’s tragic enough that a discussion of something as important and divisive as as the subject at hand has to be adulterated by cheap shots such as yours.
But what’s really sad is that not only are you willing to pollute the discourse, but you don’t even believe your own rhetoric.
greg
(Greg — I think you’ve been doing a great job on this thread, but I would’ve suggested leaving that anonymous alone. It wears its trollishness sufficiently on its face; why grant it even that thinnest veneer of respectability that comes from being responded to?)
To clarify my point before, though it would certainly be inappropriate to call people who favor the death penalty “pro-death,” it is or should be possible to use the term “pro-death penalty” to refer to a person who thinks certain convicted murderers should be executed, but who is not categorically in favor of the death penalty. At least in American politics, it would not be assumed that a person who is called “pro-death penalty” is in favor of executing people for stealing gum or using profanity on the radio or who were not convicted, even though the term itself does not include these qualifications. Likewise, people who go beyond indifference to abortion to performing them or arguing that they are beneficial, under certain circumstances, may be “pro-abortion” at least in that context, even if they would prefer that those circumstances not exist in the first place. It is a loaded term, and in the way it is usually used, it is inaccurate, but I do not think that to be accurate it would have to refer only to people who actually prefer abortion to avoiding “unwanted pregnancies.”
I realize that the term “pro-abortion” is sometimes used to refer to all people who think abortion should be legal (which is inappropriate and inaccurate if there is a way to oppose abortion altogether on grounds that would not justify government action), and the comparison I made above between “pro-death penalty” and “pro-abortion” is imperfect (it makes a little more sense to use the term “pro-death penalty” because the policy they call for is the thing they are being said to promote: the death penalty; people who favor legal abortion because they think it may be the best way to go, under certain circumstances, are not saying that the government’s policy should be that the government promotes abortion, unless they favor taxpayer funding for them), but I am just saying that when people use the term “pro-abortion,” they probably do not seriously believe that the people who they are talking about want there to be as many abortions as possible.
Greg is doing a fine job at muddying the philosophical waters, but tragically ignoring the inconvenient reality. Legalizing abortions increased the number of abortions being performed, for the very simple reason that illegality tends to make most law-abiding people avoid the illegal act.
Since legalizing abortions increased the number of abortions, it is reasonable to say that being “pro-choice” means that you support an increased number of abortions. To say otherwise is like saying that you support people’s right to drink & drive, but you are horrified by drunk driving. If you support an action, you must also support the consequences of that action, or at least find them to be “acceptable” in light of other circumstances.
Perhaps the “pro-life” label is a little simplistic. After all, there are people who are both “pro-life” and pro-death-penalty, which is arguably a contradictory position. However, “pro-choice” is simply a lie. The reality of abortion is that there are more people involved than pregnant women. Should the fathers of the unborn children get a choice? Should the parents of a pregnant teenager get a “choice” about whether or not their daughter is allowed to undergo a surgical procedure? Most importantly, should the unborn children get a “choice” about whether or not to live? No, all of those “choices” are sacrificed on the altar of the woman’s “choice”.
I suppose that we could rename the “pro-choice” faction to “pro-women’s-choice-and-anti-everyone-else’s-choice” … but that’s way too much of a mouthful. Let’s just acknowledge the effects of their “choice” (as noted above) and go with “pro-abortion”.
f you support an action, you must also support the consequences of that action,
First, I support free speech. By your logic I support terrorism because terrorists promulgate via speech.
Second, abortion was never “legalized” in this country — at least not at the federal level (where the discussion is currently) so your point about legality/illegality is a strawman.
Finally, I don’t have the data to accept or reject your claim that legalization increases abortion (it may, but I’d appreciate a cite). Irrespective of whether it does or not, can we drive the incidence downward in a manner that doesn’t involve the state’s penal apparatus?
greg
First, to Jason, great post. The women who carreid babies to term that were the result of Rape are certinaly heroes.
Greg, here is a link with some interesting statistics for you. It shows over time the rate of abortions has risen from 14/1000 to 300/1000. (the number of abortions per 1,000 live births).
Should the fathers of the unborn children get a choice?
Interesting question. I imagine you were thinking of the father having a right not to have his unborn child killed. But some people have looked at the other side of the coin, noting that if a woman decides to keep the child, she has the right to collect child support from the father even if he didn’t want the child to be born.
In the name of gender equality, some have proposed a “paper abortion,” whereby the father could relinquish all his rights and responsibilities regarding the child. Of course, I think that’s a terrible idea and moves society in the wrong direction, but the inequality of the status quo regarding abortion is an interesting problem nonetheless.