Refuting a Common Myth

This is a comment I recently left at the birth blog Stand and Deliver, which I'm posting here for easier reference. I find myself repeating this argument many times in various places across the blogopshere. What makes me sad is that this argument is so easy to refute, but pro-choicers don't seem interested in doing any research that might challenge their assumptions.

"The hypocrisy of many pro-life arguments, which glorify motherhood (by wishing all women to become mothers, however unwilling) yet do nothing to actually support mothers or babies, incenses me."

This is incorrect on two points: We on the pro-life side believe that women (and men) become parents the moment the child is conceived. However, we acknowledge that neither parent may be able or willing to parent the child after birth, in which case adoption is encouraged as an alternative to killing an innocent child who didn't ask to be conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or (in the case of rape/incest) executed for the crime of its biological parent.

As for the myth that pro-lifers do nothing to help those in crisis pregnancies, I beg you to do more research on this. See here for MANY examples.

Personally, in my city, I donate to the 1st Way CPC and am a big supporter of Maggie's Place, a home for mothers in crisis. When I lived in ND, I donated to St. Gianna's Maternity Home. Pro-lifers work their butts off to give women in crisis a viable alternative to killing their child, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that they don't.

I believe that all human beings have a right to life from the moment of existence, and that neither the circumstances of their conception or their degree of "wantedness" by their biological parent(s) should affect that right to life. It's not a matter of "valuing the embryo more than the woman who carries it." It's about doing our utmost to respect the rights of BOTH human beings in a less-than-ideal situation. No human being deserves to die because s/he isn't wanted by the person who, 99% of the time, made the free, consensual choice to engage in the act that brought him/her into existence. It's a human rights issue, pure and simple, and I don't think the deliberate murder of an innocent human being should EVER be a legal, safe, accessible choice, because it's a grave moral evil and a human rights violation regardless of the circumstances involved.

That doesn't mean I don't support helping women in these situations in every way possible in the ways you describe -- but I think it's not an either/or situation, in that we EITHER oppose abortion OR we support helping women. In fact, it's both/and -- we BOTH oppose abortion AND support helping women. I've been involved in the pro-life movement for several years now, and I've never once met a single person who thought that a fetus should have more rights than the mother, or who opposed helping women in crisis pregnancies.

Something to add to your reading list, if you're truly interested in gaining a more balanced viewpoint on this topic - "The Hand of God" by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He's the former head of NARAL, and also a former abortionist. His conversion story is chilling and moving, and he became pro-life purely based on the scientific, philosophical aspects of the argument, as well as the advent of ultrasound technology.