What’s Wrong With the New Pro-Lifers


Each side in the abortion debate has its Achilles’ heel.

For advocates of choice it’s the fetus; those opposed to abortion suffer from a cavalier attitude toward the woman who carries the fetus.

Amid proclamations that common ground has been reached on abortion, a new set of anti-abortion actors has claimed leadership of the movement. They are no longer ultra-fundamentalist Catholics and Evangelicals but anti-war, anti-capital punishment, pro-environment "pro-lifers." Single-issue anti-abortionists thought they diluted the message by claiming abortion and war were equal horrors and other progressives and Democrats thought they were, well, anti-abortionists.

But some of them are also opposed to discrimination against women and call themselves feminists.
Before Obama they were voices crying in the wilderness. Now they have emerged as the face of a new and improved anti-abortion movement. And it is improved — there are few in this crowd who rate abortion issue as the most important moral issue of our time, and they are not single-issue voters. If they were, they would not have supported Obama.

Now they are embedded in the Democratic party, much to the dismay of some. But the value of their inclusion cannot be underestimated because of the effect inclusion could have on their beliefs. For starters, this group has already decided that a political effort to make abortion illegal is hopeless, which helps the pro-choice cause. The possibility of rational public discourse about all the factors at play in women’s decisions not to continue pregnancy and not to become mothers is exactly what we need. Taking legality off the table makes that more possible. We are, however, far from common ground between the new anti-abortionists and the pro-choice advocates.

These new anti-abortionists have set forth a new ethical frame for dealing with abortion. They say rather than prohibit abortion we should work to reduce women’s use of abortion by making bearing and raising children or bearing children and placing them for adoption more possible. Since data on why women have abortions indicate a significant number of women say they choose abortion because they cannot afford to have a child, the benign anti-choicers think that better economic support for women and girls who are pregnant will result in more continued pregnancies and more women embracing motherhood. They also assert that if adoption policies were friendlier more women would place children for adoption rather than have abortions.

But facts have little place in their strategy, as the very measures they think would lower abortion rates in the U.S. are already in place in much of Europe and few women who face unintended pregnancies in those countries opt out of abortion. Something much deeper influences a woman’s decision about what to do when she is pregnant and does not want to become a mother — and the new anti-choicers don’t seem to have a clue about what this might be.

These are good and decent people who, it seems, suffer from the same lack of understanding of women’s nature and identity as do old-line anti-abortionists. No attempt is made to explore what it means to a woman to be pregnant or the essential way in which becoming a mother changes women’s identities forever — even if they place a child they bore in adoption.

While the new anti-abortionists do not use the same words as their older counterparts, they are thinking the same thoughts. Pregnancy is natural and normal. It lasts for nine months and then it is over. Motherhood is part of almost all women’s life plans. Many thrive on it. It is safe and results in a wonderful thing — a new person. It is not asking much of a woman who faces an unwanted, difficult or unintended pregnancy to shift the plan she had for this time in her life and continue the pregnancy. That’s because the outcome — the new person — is obviously so much more valuable than whatever short-term loss or pain the woman might experience. A woman who does not accept this is lacking some core element of womanhood.

This inaccurate idea of what pregnancy is about is not just dominant among those opposed to abortion. It is pretty much the unthinking assumption in modern Western culture. It denies the reality that even in modern Western culture, in the high-tech U.S., every woman who agrees to be pregnant still risks dying if the pregnancy goes awry. But the new anti-abortionists want to use their rosy view of pregnancy as the frame for public policy, and that is where they become indistinguishable from the old anti-abortion movement. For both groups, women are passive participants in gestation. They are the Tupperware containers in which children grow. "Left alone," anti-abortionists say, "the fetus will develop and be born into the world." Left alone? The development of the fetus into a baby is not a mere matter of geography. It is governed by what philosopher Maggie Little of Georgetown University describes as the "actions and resources of an autonomous agent." That includes the woman’s "blood, hormones, her energy, all resources that could be going to other of her bodily projects."

No new anti-abortionist talks about these physical realities or questions whether or not the woman has any right to object or consent to having her body used in this way. They seem to take for granted that fetal life always takes precedence over the body and identity claims of the woman. The woman’s claim to moral agency is completely disregarded and the traditional anti-choice belief that the fetus’ right to life trumps all other values is mindlessly asserted.

But the absence of a serious moral frame for women’s role in pregnancy leaves unspoken more than the physical realities of gestation. In the anti-abortion movement there is a romantic thread about women and pregnancy that includes the notion of submission alongside of passivity. However difficult the pregnancy or the circumstances of a woman’s life might be, the sign of a good woman is that she submits to the cosmic event. The alteration of her identity from self-identified autonomous person to pregnant woman and to mother are conditions she has no control over — other than to say no to sex.

Four positions taken by the new anti-abortionists illuminate this flawed thinking.

Denying the "need" for abortion. Pro-choicers and the new anti-abortionists have argued over terminology. Pro-choicers believe we should work to reduce the need for abortion. The new anti-abortionists also want to reduce the number of abortions but say there is never a "need" for abortion. Again, you could only say this if you completely minimize or reject that women’s actions and identity are significant moments of moral agency or of the woman’s personhood. You would have to believe that women do not "need" to be themselves when pregnant. According to this mind-set, women do not need the freedom to ask and decide if being pregnant with a disabled fetus or bringing it into the world is contrary to their sense of their duties to a potential child, a family or themselves. Women who have serious or even mild health challenges do not need to decide if the burdens of a pregnancy are more than they are able to bear. Because anti-abortionists see pregnancy as a passive activity by women and part of their innate nature, these questions never spring to mind.

A lack of support for contraception. That same sense of pregnancy as no big deal influences the new anti-abortionists’ unwillingness to embrace contraception, in spite of the fact that any rational attempt to reduce abortions would require rushing to provide contraception to women. If we really understood what it meant for women to consent to becoming mothers, we would want them to be able to meet their moral obligation to their own identity by avoiding becoming pregnant. Not a single Catholic anti-abortion group, including Pax Christi, Network, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good or Catholics United has had the courage to stand with women and support legislation that will provide women with better and more affordable access to contraception. Evangelicals who have embraced the new approach to abortion opposition have been somewhat more willing to support contraception, but only if they can add that they support it because it will reduce abortions, not because women have a right to prevent becoming pregnant when that is not part of their immediate or long-term identity.

Making sex sacred. This squeamishness around contraception is closely related to the conservative religious community’s concept of sex as sacred. More modern religious thinkers as well as secular philosophers look at sacredness not in the context of individual acts of sexual intercourse, but more broadly at the sacredness of procreation. For anti-abortionists, if women were not invisible, a concept of the sacredness of creation would include understanding that one of the most sacred decisions a woman makes is whether it is appropriate for her to participate in procreation, in bringing a child into the world. If we believe that the act of creating new life is sacred, then we want men and women to have the tools necessary to fulfill the obligation to create life responsibly and not create it when they cannot — or choose not to — bring it to fruition. Moreover, we would respect women’s insights after they became pregnant and honor their obligation to decide if using their life resources to bring a child into the world is the best thing to do. In conditions of poverty, famine, disease, war, unemployment, lack of parenting skills, it is good for women to be able to say, "This is not the time to create a new person."

Redefining adoption. The new anti-abortionists — and a number of pro-choice advocates — say a woman who does not choose to be a mother to a new person can continue the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. This seems to me to be a highly gendered position. I would note that most of the leaders of the new anti-abortion movement are men. They include evangelical thinkers and pastors like Joel Hunter, David Gushee and Jim Wallis and Catholics like Chris Korzen and Douglas Kmiec. There is much to respect in the work of these men and much I disagree with. I do not suggest that any of them are anti-woman. However, they all have a biological relationship to pregnancy that is dramatically different from that of women. Men are always in the position of receiving a child as an act of generosity by a woman. How often have you heard the phrase "she gave him three beautiful children," or from a woman in a second marriage, "I want to give a child to my new husband."

These are not trivial gender observations. If one takes gestation seriously, one must question the wisdom of asking women to alter their identity for not just nine months but forever in order to give a child to someone else. A woman who has had a baby is a mother, even if she places the child for adoption. For many, giving up a child becomes an unhappy part of their lifelong identity.

Historically, adoption had as its purpose finding parents for needy children. And in an age when abortion was illegal and contraception less available and safe, the need for parents was great. We need to think carefully about whether the concept of adoption should change. Is it now a process of finding children for needy parents? And, if we accept that pregnancy and child-bearing are serious and identity-altering events in a woman’s life, do we want to encourage this option of creating a needy child over other options; to define it as the most generous choice a woman can make? Might it not be more generous of us as a society to work harder to make it possible for women to keep their children if they so wish?

The challenge to the new anti-abortionists is whether or not women’s perspectives on the meaning of pregnancy and motherhood will be considered in their project, or whether their ethical frame will remain focused on the fetus. While they set about reducing the number of abortions — again, not the "need" for abortion — will the women whose lives they are affecting ever be seen as moral agents? How many of these women’s decisions will the new anti-abortionists be able to say "yes" to? So far it seems that it is far more than abortion that is a stumbling block to common ground.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Frances Kissling please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    One of the most controversial aspects of these young people (at least according to Planned Parenthood) is their anti rape stance. They have done spectacular under cover research into the treatment of under age rape victims. For examples see http://www.liveactionfilms.org
    Mona Lisa Project

  • invalid-0

    Frances – so on the mark on this topic. In particular, I wanted to highlight this:

    “Not a single Catholic anti-abortion group, including Pax Christi, Network, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good or Catholics United has had the courage to stand with women and support legislation that will provide women with better and more affordable access to contraception.”

    As a progressive and pro-choice Catholic, this is so frustrating to me – while I want to stand with these groups on a variety of issues including their work on war, poverty, and immigration, I am so tired of the way they are so ready to compromise women’s well-being.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you for this.

    For me, the distinction between old pro-lifers and new pro-lifers is the distinction between idealizing fetuses and idealizing motherhood. Unfortunately for both sorts, if you’re idealizing something you’re not fully engaging with reality about that something.

    Alas, I’m just a cynic–if you want abortion to be illegal, you are pro-life and if you want it to stay legal, you’re pro-choice. All the hand-wringing you prefer to do, in the privacy of your own mind or on street-corners, whichever side you land on, is inconsequential in the larger world. (Though it does make for entertaining internet arguments.)

  • crowepps

    Going into a Planned Parenthood clinic and lying to them, saying that you are an underage rape victim and don’t want to report the rapist to the police, is not an "anti rape stance".  It is an "anti patient confidentiality stance".

     

    Older men dating junior and high school girls is in my personal opinion a really bad idea, evidence of the man’s inability to have a relationship with an equal and ripe for exploitation, whether or not the couple is actually having sex.  Parents and friends who ignore this situation are doing the girls a real disservice.  Trying to transfer the parents’ responsiblity to health care providers after the fact has little to do with being ‘anti rape’ and is more about stigmitizing the health care providers.

     

    Making the assumption that every teenager who goes into a Planned Parenthood should be reported to the police as a criminal for unlawfully having sex is a really punitive method of discouraging teenage sex.  Is the next step going to be charging young people who masturbate with ‘sexual abuse of a minor’?

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Crowepps, I really can’t imagine why you would compare a 31 one year old man raping a 13 year old girl to masterbation, but, if its complicated to you, let me try to explain. If a doctor, teacher or nurse learns (or even has a good reason to believe) that a child is being abused, he/she has a legal responsibility to notify the police. This isn’t to punish the child; its to end the abuse. If a child confides in me and I fail to protect him or her then yes I am promoting rape, through my failure to act.

  • crowepps

    31 year old man?  You mean the one the girl made up? 

     

    I work in the legal field.  I know exactly what happens when these reports are made.

     

    Yes, the teens want the abuse stopped, but the legal process does not stop with ending the abuse – there is far more focus on punishing the perpetrator and that focus puts the children, especially teens, through absolute hell.  From the SART/SANE exam to the inevitable split in their family between those who support the victim and those who believe she did something to ‘deserve it’, even defend her abuser, to having to testify in person at the trial, all of it is just absolute torment.  The psychological support isn’t even adequate, since everything she says to her mental health therapist is discoverable and may be revealed in the courtroom.  Makes it a little difficult to work on recovery, don’t you think?

  • invalid-0

    The adoption argument does creep me out. The suggestion that a woman should bear the child and give it up for adoption because there’s a demand commodifies the infant. It casts creating a child and depriving it of its birth parents as a virtuous thing to do because some other adults have created a market for adoptees. That sounds to me at least as selfish as abortion is supposed to be. This isn’t knitting a few extra scarves to give to the homeless; this is subjecting a child (and its birth mother) to the adoption system.

  • crowepps

    We’ve made some progress, since infants are no longer considered ‘needy’ based on the fact that they’re born to single mothers (promiscuous sluts) and need a ‘good home’ elsewhere to overcome this terrible beginning.

     

    I don’t think the fact that the adoptive parents can’t reconcile themselves to their infertility and want to use someone else’s child as a way to satisfy their own emotional needs is any recommendation for their suitability to have an infant — it’s not the child’s responsibility to be there for THEM, in a healthy parent-child relationship it’s the other way around.  Worse yet, sometimes it’s only ONE of the adoptive parents who wants ‘to experience being a mother’ and the potential father agrees to ‘make her happy’ although he is indifferent.  Making HER happy shouldn’t be the goal for him, the adoption agency OR the child.

    • invalid-0

      Moreover, it is not the responsibility of pregnant women to provide adoptable infants for other people, because popular culture has determined that abortion=bad and adoption=good. The “adoption not abortion” argument is abhorrent, and makes no sense considering that there already are numerous race, gender, ability, age, and class problems in the adoption system. It also doesn’t make sense, given that there already are thousands of children waiting to be adopted. It isn’t about giving babies a “chance at life”, its about providing a certain type of infant to certain types of people.

    • invalid-0

      Crowepps says, “I don’t think the fact that the adoptive parents can’t reconcile themselves to their infertility and want to use someone else’s child as a way to satisfy their own emotional needs is any recommendation for their suitability to have an infant — it’s not the child’s responsibility to be there for THEM, in a healthy parent-child relationship it’s the other way around.”

      So you think all infertile couples should just be “ho hum” about not having children and move on without adopting? That’s a little heartless of the “we can have any number of children we want” folks, isn’t it?

      Besides–even in this day and age there are orphans, children unlucky enough to have both parents die when they are still children–are you willing to be magnanimous enough to let infertile couples adopt those kids?

      My father had lost both his parents by the time he was 8. He was fortunate enough to have an older sister who was old enough to raise him, so he didn’t go into a foster care home. That’s one of the BENEFITS of those large Catholic families you poo-poo. If it was nowadays he probably would have been an only child and spent his days “in a home” rather than with the comfort of his 6 brothers and sisters…

  • crowepps

    I addressed that particular comment to the meme that as soon as it is known that a teenage girl is sexually active then the assumption can be leapt to that she is being ‘abused’.  Statutory age of consent laws recognize that a mutual, non-coercive relationship between two teenagers is not abuse but instead absolutely normal.  So normal that thousands of years of thunderous denunciation, social disapproval, even threats of hellfire haven’t ever managed to stamp it out.

     

    If a girl is responsible enough to go into a clinic and ask for information about birth control, that is not proof that a crime has been committed, and shouldn’t automatically trigger a call to the cops.  There is no statute that I know of making "not being a virgin" a crime.

  • invalid-0

    Yes the one the girls made up just as under cover reporters have done since the dawn of time… exactly. You certainly demonstrate how difficult is must be to advocate for a youngster in court but I will not believe that doing nothing is better. **In regard to an entirley seperate issue.. I am not sure how to contact the editors of rhreality check directly… are you going to do a story on the assult in Phoenix? Several boys under 14 gang raped an 8 year old girl and the child had to be taken into DDS custody because her parents actually DID blame her. The story is on Drudge. I just think it would be a very worthwhile story to cover……..thank you

  • invalid-0

    “If a girl is responsible enough to go into a clinic and ask for information about birth control, that is not proof that a crime has been committed, and shouldn’t automatically trigger a call to the cops. There is no statute that i know of making “not being a virgin” a crime.

    Well, if a 13 year old girl is involved with a 13 or 14 or even 15 year old boy you’d probably be right, but when she says right off he’s 31- that should trigger a call to the cops.

  • invalid-0

    I have to agree on this one. If the mother carries her child to term she should have whatever help she can get to raise her child AND get child support out of the father. Once the child’s been carried to term and delivered he/she’s no longer in danger of being aborted. Therefore the “adoption not abortion” agruement doesn’t make sense.

  • crowepps

    Well, if a 13 year old girl is involved with a 13 or 14 or even 15 year old boy you’d probably be right, but when she says right off he’s 31- that should trigger a call to the cops.

    Should one person continue to talk to her while another sneaks off and calls the cops?  Should the staff search her purse for ID so they can get her real name, address and phone number?  If she tries to leave, should they do a citizen’s arrest and hold her as a material witness to a crime?

     

    The thing you’re still not admitting is that there wasn’t any 31 year old man, there was a LIE about a 31 year old man, from a girl who was IMPERSONATING an abused teen.  Perhaps if she had provided her real name and phone number they would have reported it – we’ll never know.

     

    Unfortunately, what Lila Rose and her imitators are doing is encouraging clinic staff to assume that every girl who comes in with a bizarre and unlikely story is probably some ProLife pretender doing her drama queen imitation of ‘girl in trouble’, whose worst problem really is getting good shots with her hidden camera, to be humored and shooed as quickly as possible out the door, hopefully without any footage she can edit so it becomes ‘shocking’.

     

    Real girls with real problems certainly do need and deserve help and consideration, which all too often they don’t get.  Phony ones, however, should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of the goodwill of caring people, whether they’re doing their act in a Planned Parenthood clinic or a crisis pregnancy center.  They should also be ashamed of the disrespect their actions demonstrate they hold toward girls who really are abused.  They make it LESS likely those girls will receive the compassionate help they desperately need.

  • invalid-0

    Therefore the “adoption not abortion” agruement doesn’t make sense.

    It makes sense to the people and institutions who would profit from a steep increase in the number of adoptable white infants but I quite agree, it makes no sense at all to decent people, particularly considering the tens of thousands of adoptable children in foster care.

  • invalid-0

    Asking, or to be more exact, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and put her child up for adoption is to engage in some rather immoral exploitation of a woman and her body, as well as commodification of the infant.

    Moreover, this:

    “this is subjecting a child (and its birth mother) to the adoption system.”

    is exactly correct. Thanks for your good points, Roving Thundercloud. They’re well-taken.

    btw, I’m also pro-choice and for contraception access.

  • invalid-0

    No of course I’m willing to admit that they made up the story of the 31 year old. That’s not a big secret. They had reason to believe that if an under age rape victim confided in Planned Parenthood staff they would cover for the perpertrator and they were right. You ask who exactly is going to place the call to the cops and how/if they are going to ge the girl to testify against him. I don’t know the answer to that because I don’t work in the education or medical field. The responsibility/plan of action for Planned Parenthood would be no different from that of any emergency room, pediatrician or school. Now, lets assume that a few weeks from now a real 13 year old walks into Planned Parenthood and tells a true story about being abused by an adult. The staff is worried that she may actually be an undercover reporter so they play it safe and contact the police. Result? A sex offender ends up behind bars and if he tries to move into your neighborhood in a few years you will be able to find out about the danger he presents to your family. Schools and police departments are generally more than happy to provide residents with this type of information when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood. Lets imagine for a minute that I disguise myself as a battered woman. I go to a facility which enjoys tax exempt status and ask for help with language interpertation. Lets say anyone with eyes in their head can see that I appear severly beaten, but instead of encouraging me to escape the assailant they give me a few make up tips to cover the evidence. Can we at least agree that that would be an alarming find and that my undercover work has been worthwhile? If we can agree on that then we should be able to agree that the Mona Lisa Project demonstrates a callous lack of concern on the part of Planned Parenthood employees for under age rape victims.

  • invalid-0

    They had reason to believe that if an under age rape victim confided in Planned Parenthood staff they would cover for the perpertrator and they were right.

    Well no, this is not the Catholic hierarchy who did indeed enable and ‘cover for’ thousands of pedophiles and rapists for many generations and, I have absolutely no doubt, still does. For one thing the PP staff member’s main concern, unlike, say, Cardinal Lay whose main concern was always for the rapist, was with the poorly raised young woman claiming to be a victim.
    Lila Rose hasn’t identified or stopped one rapist or pedophile. If she is interested in doing so she should expand the institutions whose employees she wishes to entrap.

  • invalid-0

    The point is that a PP worker is guilty of a coverup. No amount of deflection is going to change that fact. You choose to focus on the setup and ignore the actions of the worker. Even if Lila Rose is guilty of entrapment (I have no idea if she is or not) the worker was wrong. Say what you want about Lila Rose, but the PP worker broke rules, if not law.

  • invalid-0

    You choose to focus on the setup and ignore the actions of the worker.

    And you choose to focus on one employee at Planned Parenthood rather than address the institutional rot of the Catholic Church who actually did ‘cover up’ , enable and excuse the rapists and pedophiles in it’s employ and for generations. Just as you and the Church choose to ignore and deflect responsibility for the extreme violence of the anti-abortion movement.

  • invalid-0

    You just won’t admit that anyone, not even one isolated PP employee, on the pro-choice side EVER does anything wrong, will you? Yes, some members of the Catholic Church, to my everlasting pain and shame, have violated the teachings of the Church and committed some of the most horrendous crimes against innocent persons imaginable. Yes, there have been many incidences of extreme violence committed by radical anti-abortionists. I never have, do not now and never will ignore or justify the offenses committed by those who are associated with my positions. Anyone who commits such acts are criminals and/or sinners. crowepps, won’t you show me just one pro-choicer who you believe MAY have done something wrong regarding the abortion issue? That’s all I ask. Just one. Or are you all perfect?

  • invalid-0

    Well, I never said it was the Catholic hierarchy. I don’t think anybody here did. Actually though its interesting you should bring that up. I live in the Boston area and I think it was The Boston Globe whose journalists did a fabulous job researching the abuse that did occour in the Archdiocise. It involved years of undercover work, research and effort to help put together the case that ultimately forced the Church to acknowledge what had been going on for years. If the journalists working for the paper had run around the Cardinal’s residence shouting “I’m investigating a possible crime here!!” they never would have discovered anything. But, they were smart, quiet, collected their information and eventually presented a case that woke up the whole city. In some cases the stories they uncovered involved abuse directly but in many more they involved failure to report abuse that had been committed by others. The paper won a number of awards that year and they deserved to. That’s what journalism is all about. Lila Rosa and the other young journalists at liveactionfilms don’t have the budget the Globe had but like the Globe, its a failure to report abuse that they have uncovered. Unlike the Globe they won’t be receiving any awards from the mainstream media but they certainly are equally deserving of one.

  • invalid-0

    1. I am not crowepps.

    2. In using the example of the ongoing, institutional international scandals involving long term ACTUAL coverups, protection and enabling of pedophiles and rapists I was hoping that y’all would be able to see a clear distinction. Unlike the one employee at Planned Parenthood the Catholic church knew the names and addresses and crimes of it’s rapists and chose to protect them. Unlike the PP employee the Catholic church choose to actively discredit and blame the victims of it’s rapists and pedophiles. Unlike the PP employee, the Church accused the victims of lying and often treated them with cruelty.

    Lila Rose is not in the business of ‘exposing rapists’ or stopping rape. If she were than she would not be half as popular amongst the ‘pro-life’ set who, lets face it, have done nothing at all to make the US less savage towards women or less rape prone. Quite the opposite, in fact. Lila Rose is in the business of trying to discredit Planned Parenthood because they supply health care services including contraceptives to low income women. Indeed Planned Parenthood is the only affordable health care some woman can afford.

  • invalid-0

    “unlike the one employee at Planned Parenthood”…
    Sorry… wishful thinking this involves multiple clinics in multiple states also “Lila Rose is not in the business of ‘exposing rapists’ or stopping rape” Right, she’s in the business of exposing people who cover for rapists and step back and allow the rapes to continue.

  • invalid-0

    Whether its crowepps or anonymous, still no admission. Never a wrong act by any pro-choicer. You have made your point over and over about how evil the Catholic Church and pro-lifers are but pro-choicers are perfect.

  • invalid-0

    I know, cmarie, that this is not an isolated case. I am just trying to demonstrate how strongly the pro-choicers deny that they do anything wrong. Lila Rose is doing some vital work in exposing actual wrongdoing in PP. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

  • invalid-0

    So what, Jim. Pro-choicers are not perfect so abortion should be illegal? What’s your point?

    • invalid-0

      that the PP worker in question broke rules and/or law by not reporting what was presented to her as insemination of an underage girl by a 31 yrar old man. That’s all.

  • invalid-0

    Some years ago, I read a rather harrowing story of a girl who’d been born out of wedlock, was not wanted by her biological mother, and put up for adoption. When the adopted girl grew up and entered college, she decided, with the encouragement and enablement of her college classmates and friends, to search for and find her biological mother….after all these years. Well, you guessed it…it backfired on the biological mother and on the girl. The girl’s biological mother still wanted nothing to do with her, and the mistake that the biological mother had made so many years before ultimately blew up in her face. The humiliation was clear in both instances, imho.

    All of the above having been said, this is yet another humiliating, if not dangerous consequence of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and, moreover, carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption is NOT a good idea.

  • invalid-0

    I think that was her point, that there are children in need, and that others shouldn’t be encouraged to carry to term merely to give the baby up for adoption, because that’s not the point of adoption in the first place. There are many children already in need, but pro-lifers are trying to bring into this world even more needy children.

  • emma

    Frances, this post was amazing.

  • crowepps
    So you think all infertile couples should just be "ho hum" about not having children and move on without adopting? That’s a little heartless of the "we can have any number of children we want" folks, isn’t it?
    You sound like you’re talking about puppies.  I think people who want to adopt to benefit of THE CHILDREN are wonderful and a blessing.  I think people who want to adopt to satisfy their OWN FEELINGS OF INADEQUACY should be screened out. 
    Besides–even in this day and age there are orphans, children unlucky enough to have both parents die when they are still children–are you willing to be magnanimous enough to let infertile couples adopt those kids?
    I have no opnion one way or the other with infertile couples, but the fact that they are infertile does not OBLIGATE girls or women to produce infants for them.
    My father had lost both his parents by the time he was 8. He was fortunate enough to have an older sister who was old enough to raise him, so he didn’t go into a foster care home. That’s one of the BENEFITS of those large Catholic families you poo-poo.
    Huh?  I don’t remember saying anything poo-poo about large Catholic familes.  I do remember saying most women don’t want 8 to 10 kids.  Certainly I can’t see how banning birth control so that women end up with children they didn’t want is justified by the possibility that they might drop dead (possibly from all those pregnancies ruining their health) and depend on the older children to take care of the youngest. 
    If it was nowadays he probably would have been an only child and spent his days "in a home" rather than with the comfort of his 6 brothers and sisters…

    What?  When he could have made have made one of those terrific infertile couples so happy?

  • independentminded

    Frances, this post was amazing.

     

    most definitely is true, Emma. I read the post and everybody’s comments on with with interest (and added some pearls of my own), and I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of this post.  

     

     

  • invalid-0

    This was a really good post. I agree 100%. Too often, people ignore any impact that a pregnancy may have on a woman. Too often, people refuse to believe that a pregnancy can effect a woman for longer than just 9 months.

  • invalid-0

    Such faux concern for infants by the pro-choicers, saying things like infants born into the world where they might not get adopted since so many are waiting to be adopted. If the mother really cared for her unborn, then she would have kept the baby. To have mindset she does not want the baby but yet saying she does not want to give chance to be adopted since the baby might get into the wrong hands really amounts to saying “I don’t love my baby enough but if I cannot love my baby I rather have the baby dead then give others a chance to love the live baby.”

    It is not caring for the infants at all. It is narcissism and cruel.

  • invalid-0

    Not all women want to be mommies. Not all women want to be pregnant. And not wanting those things does NOT mean we’re either evil or psychologically impaired.

    Being sick and fat for nine months….then going through hell pushing the thing out…then putting up with a noisy expensive ungrateful kid for 18 to 25 years….yeah, sign me right up for that! <–sarcasm

  • invalid-0

    This article speaks so eloquently about the continued and varied forms of the symbolic annihilation of women. Pelvic politics and fetal worship reduce women into vessels for men and, potentially, for the fetus. Until women of all ages have full autonomy over their bodies, their decisions, their life choices, they remain second class citizens.