It is not exactly fair for those of us harping that conservatives need to be better communicators of our convictions to leave it at that. We need to actually provide the answers we demand our bretheren use and develop talking points for conversation and social media to help articulate our cause, if we’re going to ask for help :). With that spirit in mind, below are starters for the pro-life stance. Please, note, that for the first time in over 20 years, yours truly used the clinical term for pregnancy termination, the a-word, the word I find abhorrent, to write this piece.
May as well start at the beginning since it’s always best, thank you, Glenda, or let’s turn the tables on the left when it comes to the human right even Thomas Jefferson put at the top of his list – LIFE.
If we conservatives are serious about wanting to not only win elections, but recognize that in the future we are going to have to sway the western hemisphere Latino and Hispanic votes (my European Spanish grandfather always made the distinction) in order to do so, particularly in states like Texas where the Latino birthrate is outpacing the rest, being able to defend our belief in the right to life is tantamount. That particular segment of the population expressed disgust that the right did not push this far more during the 2012 campaign. This topic, for them, is of a higher magnitude than most others, according to the criticism. (Yet another issue the “experts” told us to avoid.)
Simply stated, what is the conservative, traditional American stance on the “right to choose”:
it is “What right do we adults have to purposefully kill unborn children? NONE.”
Now, how to defend that stance and tell the truth about the darkest of the darkness hailed by the left… Hmmm…..
To start gathering the facts, statistics, reasoning and all the circumstances surrounding not just the topic today, but the way it was sold to the American people as a “choice” we just had to have, “Why I Am Pro-Life” was searched on the internet and the first site on the list was http://www.whyprolife.com/. Well, ya’ll, there’s no need to do the heavy lifting on writing out the pro-life stance. It’s already done.
Why Pro-Life spells out all the arguments from the left that seek to entrap those of us who believe that every conceived child has the right to be born into contradicting our stance and then gives clear, concise, non-inflammatory answers to those arguments. The statistics need to be updated, and there are a few omissions, but for the most part, a really good resource to study and utilize. Some quick tidbits to use:
- Twice as many children are killed in the womb every year in the United States as have died in service to our country in all wars in which we have participated combined.
- Just because an act is legal doesn’t make it right, this is true, but it does signal social legitimacy, whether warranted or not, and in the case of unborn child killing, increased its occurrence multi-fold after being legalized. Rare? 23% of American pregnancies end in this way now. How is that rare?
- When making the argument that abortion should be legal, the claim was made that hundreds of thousands of women were dying in back alleys due to coat hangers being used to scrape out the uterus. The truth is that 90% of the procedures were done by physicians – sometimes in their offices – and the annual death rate was less than 10,000 women per year (the larger number was made up) and then due to infection, perforated uterus, hemorrhage…the same reasons women die post abortive today and the same reasons they always have.
- We on the right know this, but it needs to be repeated over and over again: many of the original advocates of legalizing the procedure defected to the pro-life side. Norma McCorvey, Jane Doe of the Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade and Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL are the most notable.
- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated “birth control,” contraceptives and the like, in order to AVOID the “vicious horror” and violence of abortion. There were many things about which Ms. Sanger was very wrong, human rights speaking, but on this she was very correct: women are victimized when their children are ripped from their wombs in MANY ways. (That the failure of contraceptives results in a significant percentage of terminations, IS addressed.)
- Which brings us to the main question and something that has not been addressed well by we conservatives: how does a mother having her child killed help her, when decades of evidence now tells us that post-abortive mothers and fathers suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, flashbacks, depression, and have a high suicide rate.
How is this good for women?
How is it good when the service providers in the industry have addictions to alcohol, narcotics and more more often than not?
How is it good when there is zero oversight for cleanliness and standards for care in the industry?
How is it good that there is no follow-up psychiatric evaluation and care when the related psychoses have been noted and followed since the 1930’s in Russia?
How is it good when help and healing organizations like Silent No More, Project Rachel, Rachel’s Vineyard, Rachel Ministries and more are popping up like roses among the thorns to assist women (and men) to heal from the trauma of what was sold to them as a convenient way out of parenthood?
How is it “safe” when women are still dying from exactly the same complications that killed women decades ago? The numbers may be fewer, but that doesn’t change that women are still dying.
How is it good that no statistics on coercion are kept? Is it really the woman’s “choice” or are the men in their lives looking for a cheap and easy way out of parenthood?
How can the people who claim to want the best for women turn a blind eye to this sort of harm?
Of course, this is not every argument or reason, but a sampling. The question remains: why do the “Pro-Choice” people among us not see that legalizing abortion not only made it far more prevalent, but why are they ignoring the harm it does, especially to women, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries.
The left uses emotion and personal trauma to effectively neutralize the life begins at conception truth. Turning the tables means using the same sort of emotional strings with mental illness and the victimization of women to an advantage. A child dies during the procedure, and what does it do to the mother? What is her journey following the death of her son or daughter? That is the sort of ammunition we need to use.
Also, and this is a big one, yes, killing children in the womb has been known for thousands of years, but it’s hardly ever been socially acceptable. In pre-Christian Celtic society, abortion was grounds for a man to divorce his wife, as marriage was all about raising children. In our modern attempt to reject not just God, but natural law, social norms are being turned on their heads. My late grandmother once said, “In my day, when a woman had an abortion, she did so quietly and did not admit to it later.” (And my grandparents lived next door to the neighborhood provider.)
Social acceptance cannot be legislated, but as stated above, legality does signal legitimacy. That is why we conservatives seek to make killing a child in the womb illegal, due to the harm it does women and men – let alone the number of children who have died – and in turn the tearing at the fabric of society that results from the mental illness that follows. As we believe that life begins at conception, this may not be the first reason that comes to mind, but it is the one that will counter “it’s good for women” when, clearly, the pro-choice stance has done nothing but hurt.
As a side note, Why Pro-Life brings up the lack of Biblical passages prohibiting purposeful pregnancy termination. Remember, in the Bible, the number of SIGNIFICANT figures who, by the laws of nature, should not have been born because their mothers were older, barren, or known virgins. That didn’t stop God. He wanted those men and women to be born. All things are possible with God.