*Stealth marketing and masked political statements have made Roe v. Wade/Abortion a veiled issue in most elections. The pro-life, pro-choice debate never happened because of the distraction of money. Sure, there has been talking, yapping, yelling, arguing, but no debate.
Before reading any further, from one to 10 rate these factors according to values.
- Life, authority affecting life or death,
- Quality of life,
- the Personal responsibility of decisions,
- Money Funding,
- Women’s choice,
- Government choice,
- Current laws, Fairness, and
- Abortion/Pro-life services.
There are other factors related to pro-life pro-choice, but let’s just deal with these now.
Growing up Catholic made me pro-life. Popes have consistently supported life except for wars. My family tithes to the church supported priests, building churches, ministries, food banks, and orphanages. As I grew older, orphanages seemed to wane. Beyond the costly basics of food, clothing, healthcare, education, and shelter, orphanages require administration and funding retirements, much like the negligent priests on the church payroll. Pro-life had teeth when religions and the public funded orphanages. Now, the pro-life movement labels funding as a socialist political issue.
I was pleased to see a woman with her adopted daughter at the March for Life rally. She walks the walk. A handful of American citizens fulfill the needs of children unwanted, or the ill-cared, through adoption, fostering, or financial assistance. My pro-life stance changed when I read a teenage girl raped was forced by a government and court to bring that child to term without regard to the child’s well-being or the teenager’s ability to raise a child.
…your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.”
In the Texas Senate debate between Beto O’Rourke and Ted Cruz, I agreed with Cruz when he said life is precious; it needs protection, it’s a gift of God. Who can argue that every breath you and I take is a precious opportunity? Cruz’ spiritual message then turned condescending to religious thought; putting our money where our mouth is.
Cruz indicated he favored overturning Roe v. Wade and said he did not want Medicaid to pay for abortions by women; ok, taxpayer money should not be spent one way that raises issues. One, Cruz supports laws historically formed by men. Two, it’s a decision imposed on women as the thought of giving this responsibility to men is nil. Three, it offers no forethought of funding medical costs or the necessities of a child from birth to eighteen. Four, it’s government unfairly regulating women to an economic stratum. Five, it surrenders women’s right to retain medical control of their body.
I disliked when Cruz implied he was speaking for Hispanics on pro-life pro-choice. Hispanics that I am familiar with take responsibility for their decisions. If a family member became pregnant, I would offer to help financially or provide total support of a child depending on the situation. I have limited funds so I cannot provide for every child without public assistance. If I decided a woman unfamiliar to me should have a baby, then I should take financial and nurturing responsibility for that child until the age of 18. I was raised to be responsible for the decisions I make. I was also raised not to make decisions for others unless I assumed responsibility.
There are bunches of pro-choice reasons a woman can decide not to carry a baby to term. An unwanted pregnancy can prevent women from pursuing their educational and career goals. The pro-life movement would be more successful when women have educational and career opportunities and not merely labeled as evil with a vengeance.
The rise of women in politics and power will redirect the discussion of reproductive freedom and educational programs for teenage girls in the suburbs or the poor in US society. Cutting access to birth control, women health clinics, school lunches, or shelters is not a solution, unlike adopting children from unplanned pregnancies and funding sex education.
Women are more than capable of deciding on their course of action from a set of alternatives to their present station in life and their future, weighing options and consequences. We all are different, and each of us determines our goals and wishes in life. That freedom should not be taken or regulated by the government.
Benedictine Nun Joan Chittister said, “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
Americans must demand pro-life, pro-birth, pro-choice debate.
Government shines when it takes full responsibility and makes constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on ethical standards, safety concerns, and social norms. If the government regulated that fathers, not mothers, were responsible for the financial and nurturing needs of children compelled to term, the pro-life, pro-choice debate would come to term. Now that’s a feminist position that would make men shudder.
Friends of ours recently had their healthy baby. They will provide their child with shelter, food, clothing, healthcare, education, and love. Life is precious. Do not make pro-life pro-choice political. Put your money where your mouth is.
Sam Martinez is a retired FBI special agent
and author of
Systemic Evil, Mat Perez vs the FBI