In an effort to undermine the specific pro-life position, the pro-abortion community distracts into unrelated and irrelevant issues.
Birth control and contraception
The first of these is to suggest that pro-lifers are against birth control through contraceptive methods that prevent the fertilization of the female egg cell. In fact, most pro-lifers are strongly supportive of methods that would prevent conception – the point when the new life has all the DNA attributes of a human being. Virtually all the physical traits of the later person are already contained in the DNA. That is the beginning of the development of a human being. That is beyond refutation.
Birth control prevents the creation of a developing human being and negates any later consideration of abortion. Birth control is a good thing – both in terms of technology and education. Pro-lifers also believe in moral and abstinence education.
Yes … I know that certain religious groups have moral objections to contraception and the “spilling of the seed,” but those issues do not drive the pro-life, anti-abortion folks – and they have virtually no impact on public policy. I have yet to see even the most religious folks lobbying for legislation to ban masturbation or the use of condoms.
Preventing pregnancies precludes the later question of abortion. Contraception is a pro-life position.
Heartless disregard for the newborn
This is one of the more heartless and nonsensical accusations leveled at pro-lifers – and egregiously wrong. Basically, the charge is that while pro-lifers want to save the life of the developing human being (true), they care nothing about what happens to the unwanted child after birth (false).
Those who proffer that argument intimate – and even claim – that the child will have a profoundly unhappy life – subject to neglect and abuse. He or she will suffer from a lack of resources – such as food and medical care – because of the impoverishment of the single mother. For the pro-abortion folks, the example is most often a single minority mother. (Talk about racist stereotyping).
The first problem with that malicious claim is that the vast majority of pro-life institutions provide adoption services for women who prefer to give up their child. Often that decision is based on the mother’s belief that the child will have a “better life” with a different family – partially dispelling the contention that all those unaborted babies will live in misery – or turn out to be anti-social adults.
I recall Jerry Falwell saying that pro-lifers are obligated to address the wellbeing of the newborn. For his part, he launched a major adoption program within his ministry. Statistically, pro-lifers – and conservatives in general – are the most likely to adopt.
Those who proffer the heartless pro-lifer propaganda fail to take into consideration that there is a network of the private sector and religious voluntary charitable support groups – food pantries, and community daycare.
It is no small irony that the critics who say the unaborted children will not have the support of pro-lifers and society, in general, seem to have forgotten about all the government programs at the federal, state, and municipal levels that provided direct and indirect support to children and families with children. Such programs as an aid to dependent children, school lunch programs, school counselors, SNAP (food stamps), rent assistance, free clinics, etc., etc., etc.
America provides enormous support for children at risk – whether from government or private sector efforts AND is uniquely provided by the pro-life community. To say that pro-lifers do not care about the unaborted babies – or do nothing to support them – is just another leftwing false propaganda narrative … period.
Summary
Rather than waste time on irrelevant or phony issues, we should concentrate on the central issue of abortion – and that is the determination of when the developing human being in the womb has the inalienable and constitutional right to life. Everything else is political flak.
So, there ‘tis.