I think it is interesting that people I know, including family, assume I am not pro-life. I prefer the terms pro-choice versus anti-choice. I certainly do not mean to be adversarial with regard to terminology. I guess the term anti-choice can have a negative connotation. Would it be better to say one is an abortion foe? Someone who wants to see abortion ended? I guess that is a loaded question. I mean one can be pro-choice and value a right to choice but still want to see an end to the occurrence of abortion.
I once was a “pro-choice” liberal and in fact, my “pro-choice” views were seen as unusual or atypical in America at the time. It seemed that way. I guess I believed that a good person could allow for abortion was an evil thing. I do remember being viewed as unusual in this view, in terms of society overall. I do not mean to say that I was unusual for being a liberal and “pro-life” as that was even more unusual, but just being an abortion foe. I must say that one of the reasons I changed from my stance as an abortion foe was in fact based on the beliefs and views of certain abortion foes.
What was I hearing? It was a view regarding universal health care in America that really had me perplexed regaring those views of people that I thought I had one thing in common. These people would tend to vote Repubilcan but they seemed to support a pro-life view that I had as well. Then I starting thinking about the views of these folks when it came to health care assurance, or health care insurance. I was overwhelmingly shocked by some things I heard. I mean overwhelmingly shocked.
Here I was hearing about how “life is just dangerous” and “who will pay for Health Insurance” for everyone… “things happen.” I was confused. These pro-life people aren’t universally pro-life. The Catholic Church did not demand that we equally demand health care assurance for 100% of the people. Did no one see a problem with this? This anti-abortion stance had nothing to do with protecting and preserving human life at any cost. The cynical side wanted to say, “yeah, protect human life except don’t ask for a dime from me to do this.” That sounds mean to judge others in that way but I don’t get it.
One of my conclusions was this… Things are not so black and white and that the ideal of protecting and preserving human lives is not black and white either. If one could be comfortable knowing that a human life might be lost or a human might suffer because of lack of health care - because of all the reasons why providing this was problematic - then the pro-life/pro-choice view was never so simple and straightforward as the Church or anyone else might want to make it.
If the Christian churches want to change this, they need to look at other pro-life issues and get out there and demand that if a person is to claim to be “pro-life” they absolutely must support universal health care coverage (not insurance but assurance),they must support a living wage, they must support affordable housing, and they must oppose wars that result in unnecessarly loss of life ( indesicriminate bombing and other campaigns that show no respect at all for life). If one is pro-life one is similarly furious to hear about any life lost because a person suffered and died due to lack of affordable housing and a safe place from the cold.
We don’t have this now. As far as I can tell, most of the pro-life right has a hundred or a thousand excuses why the state or the government shouldn’t get involved in health care, complete and 100% housing for all, and a living wage, and why the action of goverment to not get involved in these things outweighs the risk of people suffering and dying.
These were many of the reasons that I developed a very open-mind toward the pro-choice stance… not to mention that such so called “evil” and “immoral” folks were those most likely to support the more important “pro-life” causes that I supported all along.
No tags for this post.