Pro-life vid of day: Do pro-lifers care about kids after birth?
by Kelli
On a recent radio program, Stand to Reason’s Greg Koukl (pictured) answered an apparently pro-choice school teacher, Anne, who snarkily asked what he, as a pro-lifer, is doing to take care of children “once they’re here.”
After telling her that he has adopted two children from crisis pregnancies, she still seemed dissatisfied. Koukl responded:
It sounds to me like you wouldn’t be satisfied unless I raised funds for every woman in crisis pregnancies or adopted every child, which obviously would be ludicrous….
I am concerned about the logic and reasoning that seems to be sitting behind this and that is: unless we’re willing to care for these children, then we have no right to tell other women not to kill them. This is not a morally sound equation…. Just because I’m not willing to marry the woman that a man is beating, his wife, doesn’t mean that I can’t object to him beating her.
Take a listen:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/mdzisJJJ-W0[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[Photo via howgoodisthat.wordpress.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I get so tired of hearing this. When people ask that I tell them I am a child welfare social worker and an adoptive mom. I can’t save every child and help every pregnant woman, but I do the best I can.
I know that not every prolifer is conservative, but study after study has shown that conservatives are more generous when it comes to charitable giving than liberals.
The underlying assumption of these pro-borts is this: They believe that contraception and abortion solves poverty.
That also believe that the only other solution to poverty is an infinite supply of wealth and resources.
With these two dogmas, they feel logical in demanding that pro-lifers must have infinite resources available before we work to defend life and mothers.
Of course, they also have their defining dogma that life has little value, especially in the womb.
I wouldn’t have termed the question that way, because I think it boxes pro-lifers too much in a political view point.
I would say pro-life conservatives care more about the preborn than the post born.
I would say pro-choice liberals care about the post born more than preborn.
I find some conservatives and some democrats to hold a high esteem of life throughout – but not a ton.
I see a problem in framing everything in terms of politics, “liberals,” and “conservatives.”
The Pro-Life movement is not a political movement. Yes… we do seek legal protection for pre-born children. And yes… we are large and powerful enough in the culture that political parties seek our support or rally their base to oppose us.
But we are not political. We long for the day when liberals and conservatives are both strongly pro-life. We should be working together to take care of children, both before and after their births. From conception forward.
We care about children and their mothers, both before and after our current legal system deigns to protect them from harm.
“The Pro-Life movement is not a political movement.”
Amen Del!!!
Is the pro-life political? Sure.
Should it be a partisan issue?
No.
Ted Kennedy was pro-life.
Until he saw the political power of pro-choice.
Jesse Jackson was pro-life.
Until he saw the political power of pro-choice.
My affiliation with the democratic party stems from the value of looking out for the little guy, the guy who suffers injustice simply because he does not have his own power, or any advocacy group advocating for him.
In my opinion, this is consistent with the values of many democrats. There is a “pro-life democrats” group.
This is not the values of Marxists. The Marxists, however, have had a 100-year campaign to affect our values, and cozy up with the democratic party.
“Labor” is a common interface keeping things less obvious.
So is the “feminist” movement.
If the democrats were not so busy boo-ing God and chanting “Hail, Satan,” the democrats could be, right now, stealing the abortion issue from conservatives.
OK, regarding the OP: as I have noted: if you engage in discussion with one of these cult-thinking superior liberals, you are not engaging in a reasoned discussion.
They have cult-thinking, and can only think down one track.
This guy could have said he has adopted a hundred kids, and his point would still be disrespected.
My point in repeating this idea is this:
Do not be fooled into thinking that you are entering a rational discussion if you decide to debate the abortion issue with one of these dogmatic cult members.
Instead, appreciate that you are dealing with a brain-washed person with a delicately balanced, precarious world view that cannot stand rigorous logical challenge.
It can be dangerous to threaten this world view too strongly too quickly.
You at least will lose friends and family from your social circle.
If my children were still small, I would pick a prolifer over a proabort to babysit them every time.
From what I have witnessed, prolife educators are way more compassionate; proaborts, way more arrogant.
The argument that prolifers don’t care abut people after birth is bunk.
Ah yes, because if you don’t support democratic social policies you don’t care about kids after birth. I just like to stipulate the point. Ok, so let’s assume I don’t care about kids after birth in whatever partisan way you want to define caring. I don’t care if they die. I don’t care if they starve. I’m a hypocrite, I admit it. Now tell me why that makes it ok for you to kill a preborn child.
It’s not that they’ll actually have an argument at that point. It just gets you to the huffy silence faster. This is just another strawman to keep from having to defend the indefensible.
Who are those diapers, highchairs, bouncy seats and clothes for down at your local Pregnancy Resource Center?
PS They’re free.
How does me adopting a child prove that abortion does not kill a child?
How does me NOT adopting a child prove that abortion does not kill a child?
Many of the women who consider abortion already have children and may be single mothers.
Do any of you support paid maternity leave and legislation that will prevent a pregnant woman from losing her job because she was too sick?
Does your “crisis pregnancy center” offer babysitting services for older siblings if Mom needs to go to medical appointments because she has a complicated pregnancy?
Does your CPC try to convince the local Walmart not to fire the pregnant Mom because she took too many sick days? And don’t tell me “God will provide” if she got fired. Are you going to it’s up to her find another job because your job is done since the baby is born and she at least didn’t “kill” her baby?
Or are you going to tell her it is her “godly duty” to breed babies and she should get married to a nice Christian man instead of working outside the home.
It’s easy to donate diapers, highchairs, bouncy seats and clothes — they are just a drop in the bucket of the many things a pregnant mother needs. But if I were pregnant again, I’d be more concerned about supporting myself and having a secure, steady, well-paying job. I would want to buy the diapers, high chairs and clothes myself.
If you want abortion to become unthinkable, you must acknowledge that working mothers need more support that our society in the USA gives them. The United States is the only industrialized nation with no mandated paid parental leave.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-paid-parental-leave-_n_2617284.html
Take away the worry regarding job security for pregnant mothers, and abortion may become unthinkable per your dreams.
Almond_bubble_tea, what did you think of the content of the video linked above? And what about Sweden, which has an abortion rate just as high as the U.S. despite having plenty of support for working mothers?
I notice A_b_t doesn’t mention fathers. . .