Civil war among pro-lifers?

Thinking about it, I do like the new approach. I don’t think that it should be done at the exclusion of political action, but rather in conjunction with it. If the last 25 years have shown anything, putting red tape over our mouths and marching in front of the Supreme Court is only so effective. People argue, and rightly so, that pro-lifers show little concern for the pregnant woman (the victim). I think that the more compassionate that the pro-life side looks, the more heartless it makes the pro-choice side seem.

Joe (@2), it’s easy to blame people like Kirk (@1) — and, on occasion, myself — for “not paying attention”, but at some level pro-lifers have to take responsibility for their/our message. When I turn on the TV and hear about the “pro-life” movement, I typically see some guy in a suit condemning people and urging that Roe v. Wade must be overturned. That guy has gotten (and seemingly will continue to get) more attention than all the very loving pro-life people doing what you’re talking about.

At some level, this will always be true. The media will always on a man talking conflict than on a thousand men doing charity work. But you can’t just give up and say that everyone should pay attention to the good things you’re doing. Why not take a cue from the secular world and get all your Christian celebrities to explicitly support your cause — wear ribbons, mention it in their awards speeches, write songs about it, do PSAs … all about helping pregnant women in need to reduce abortions.

Sure, it doesn’t have to be either/or. In fact, it can’t be. How many average people can do diddly-squat to overturn Roe v. Wade besides a vote every now and then? How many average people can volunteer at clinics, adopt, or whatever when they’re not voting? It seems to me that the pro-life movement has expended an enormous amount of energy getting its people worked up over something they have little control over, and neglected to muster them where they could have a real effect.

And I say this as a pro-life Christian who hasn’t done much himself, in part because I don’t know what I could do in my local area. I’ve never heard about it in my church, though I have been given pamphlets that discuss voting in a pro-life context. See?

@Joe

I’m definitely aware and extremely thankful for the work that Crisis Pregnancy centers do for women, and I’m certainly not saying that the pro-life movement does nothing for pregnant women. I should have been clearer in what I meant. The thrust of what I’m trying to say relates to what *the* strategy is: protests and legal action. Assisting women is, at this point, merely a facet of the larger plan. Personally, I think that the roles should be reversed. *The* strategy should be at the grass roots, assisting at-risk women so that they won’t get abortions. We should still push for legal change, but it should be what we devote 95% of our attention to.

For those who don’t choose to remain ignorant on the beginnings of organizations that aid pregnant women, read this:

http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/1990/04/26/b/

This is the story of Louise Summerhill, founder of Birthright, which began in *1968.* ! She was a religious Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism, who was given free rental space for her care center by a Baptist! Christians have been caring for pregnant women all along without clamoring for media attention. This has been done with their own private money, time, resources, and prayer. Shame on those who have swallowed the media line that Christians only take the conflict approach.

I used to be the media representative of Right to Life for our city. The media would interview me for half an hour and would be very disappointed when I had nothing radical or argumentative to say. They would leave in disgust, quoting me in only one tiny sound bite that was of little consequence. I finally quit the (volunteer) job and decided that raising my four boys to love God and respect women would be a more fruitful endeavor.

The media only wanted stories of conflict and wanted to further the image of pro-lifers being mainly rabidly anti-abortion men who don’t care about pregnant women. The media was not interested in listening to a calm, loving, and rational pregnant mother of three.

As a side note, when I was the media representative for Right to Life, I used to get regular hate mail from a man in our state. Evil does exist, and it was all in that mail. It was frightening.

@8

Well, you be sure to tell them. I’m certain they’d be very responsive if you let them know that they are bringing our country down.

I disagree with Manxman @8 in part because I think it’s plain that the stigmatization of single motherhood would result in more, not less, abortions. Where abortion is legal, you can’t make having children more culturally onerous than aborting them.
But Manxman is consistent in one interesting way. Why doesn’t the religious right strengthen traditional marriage by fighting for the repeal of no-fault divorce? It’s interesting that the religious right views same-sex marriage as a great threat to traditional marriage, when it does nothing to hamper traditional marriage. What cripples traditional marriage, it seems to me, is the easy way such marriages are entered into and dissolved.

One of the things that bothers me greatly is how the single mother has become something of an American cultural heroine, rather than being seen as someone who has failed in a critical area of life and who is a symptom of something gone seriously wrong in our culture. A society where single motherhood is prevalent & increasing is a society on its way down the tubes. In addition to helping these mothers to attempt to raise their kids, what should be analyzed and addressed is the values, actions, ideas and attitudes they exhibited that brought them to that place. Too often the father of the kids automatically becomes the “bad guy” , but that is way too simplistic and in reality, overlooks the guilt and shortcomings of the woman involved.

Since it is the woman who ultimately determines whether the sex act is rape or proceeds as something consensual, then SHE is the one who most directly bears the responsibility for creating children in non-rape situations. If she says “No!!” the sex doesn’t happen. It is SHE who decides whether sexual things are a romantic game or amusement in her life and decides who SHE hooks up with or bothers to marry. It is SHE who decides whether to have sex and children within the context of marriage or to treat that sex and marriage as something trivial. In the marriage, it is HER actions and attitudes as much as the man’s, that determines the quality and longevity of the marriage. At one time, in much of America, women set something of a higher standard for values and behavior. Obviously, those days are behind us, and women now are busy lowering the bar on moral standards as fast as they are able, with disastrous results. It is well past time that single mothers were held accountable for ALL the factors that they are responsible for in creating the single-mother situation and in the damage they are doing to our society.

We do need love and mercy to single moms, and if you want a great place to find it, take a look at your local crisis pregnancy center. I’ve been supporting then and serving in them for 17 years now, and quite frankly, when people tell me that pro-lifers are not active in this area, I know they’re not terribly observant.

That said, Manxman also has a great point. The statistics on single parenting are unambiguous and bleak. Why not a bit of shame at doing that to a child–exposing them to factors like abortion, child abuse, poverty, crime, and so on? Why not a bit more shame at doing that to a lover and her child?

Doug Wilson commented once that if a boy be raised well, the thought of becoming a father outside of wedlock, and exposing a young lady to the horrors of single parenting, ought to make him physically ill. He’s got a great point, I think.