If the damage weren’t so devastating, one would say that it is ironic that the movement to protect human fetuses, that brands itself “pro-life” and sprang from the moral and religious reverence for human life of the Catholic Church and Evangelical branches of Christianity, is in fact an inhumane movement.
The reader may well ask, “How can I call the pro-life movement inhumane?” The dictionary definition of inhumanity is lacking kindness, compassion; being cruel.
Let me count the ways in which the pro-life movement is inhumane.
First, it is an act of cruelty towards the very lives that the movement seeks to save. The life of a child is a difficult one filled with anxiety, insecurity, and fear. Even when raised in what can be described as a loving family, things typically happen within the family that cause a child to suffer from these emotions. And these are children who are wanted.
How cruel it is to force a child to be born into a family that does not want him or her. How much more will that child suffer than the average child? And if the child is given up for adoption or placed in a foster home, how much more will the child suffer?
That the fate of these children once they are born is of no concern to the pro-life movement is itself an act of cruelty. What’s worse, many of the same conservative Evangelical forces that are pro-life are actually in favor of reducing government aid to needy families with children. Making it more likely that some of these saved children will suffer from malnutrition, poor health, and inadequate housing. That some now offer short-term housing for women and their newborns is not an answer to the problem they have created.
Second, it is lacking compassion for the living person, the woman who is bearing the child. Any woman who makes the decision to abort the life moving within her struggles with that decision, not because of the pressures of society or family, but because of the biological and psychic bond between the mother and her unborn child.
It shows a total lack of respect for another human being, one who is living, to not acknowledge this decision-making process. Whether she is in a bad marriage. Whether there just isn’t enough money for another baby. Whether she is at her wits’ end. Regardless the reasoning, abortion is never undertaken lightly.
“Ah,” the pro-life advocate will say, “then she should have practiced birth control.” Of course, the Catholic Church does not sanction protective birth control of any sort. But putting that aside, this retort points to the third way in which the movement is inhumane.
As has most recently been shown in the passage of a restrictive abortion bill by the Alabama State legislature, pro-life activists will not even allow an exception from their crusade for women who have been raped or been the victim of incest. Such women had no choice to practice birth control. But nevertheless the movement would force these women to bring into life children who were formed either by their rapist or their father or other relative who abused their trust. If this is not a lack of compassion, if this is not cruelty, I don’t know what is.
Another cruelty, is that most pro-life advocates will not allow an exception for cases where the mother’s life is at stake. They are pro-life for the unborn fetus, but anti-life for the living mother, who more than likely has living children. They show more compassion for the fetus than for those living children; how will they be harmed by the death of their mother?
The Religious Right, as well as the Republican Party, has for the past several decades been extremely clever at setting the terms of debate, ever since the days of Lee Atwater. At branding themselves in a way which comments favorably on themselves and branding their opponents, typically Democrats, in way which comments unfavorably on them.
Thus the recent pro-life hashtag, #EndInfanticide. How in the world do you fight against the image that by protecting a woman’s choice, you are promoting infanticide?
I suggest that you fight fire with fire. It is not enough to counter “pro-life” with “pro-choice.” The slogans just don’t carry the same moral weight.
There are four strategies I would suggest. The first is that Democrats and other pro-choice activists must make very clear that they are anti-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. Everyone detests the idea. It’s just that in certain situations, some feel it is the lesser of two evils. Thus the first new hashtag for the pro-choice movement should be, #antiabortion.
The second is calling the pro-life movement on the inhumanity and the hypocrisy of their position. Thus I propose a second hashtag, #prolifeisinhumane.
The third is to bring the Christian denominations that have official policy supporting Roe v Wade to the forefront. It must be clear that this is not a fight of the religious against the secular. One can be Christian, religious and have a moral and religious reverence for life and yet support the right to end a pregnancy in properly limited circumstances. This is not a contradiction. Indeed, as I argue above, it is the pro-life position that is a contradiction. Of course other religions should be included, but this should not be allowed to appear as a Christianity v other religions issue.
The fourth is to come up with a new name or names to replace “pro-choice” as it just doesn’t have the necessary moral heft. This one I had trouble with. It has to have the right image, be short, and resonate. Possibly “Pro-Mother” or “Pro-Child” with the accompanying hashtags.
It is past time for the tables to be turned on the Religious Right and for Democrats and other pro-mother/pro-child people and religious institutions to set the terms of debate.
