Doing what we say

I don't read GetReligion blog frequently, as I am put off with the religious editorializing, though I suppose that comes with the territory, since the site editors are writing about how the media fails to cover religious news in a substantial way. I do take offence, though, when the analysis of the articles in questions turns into conservative Christian harrumphing at their isolation from the body politic, particularly when those opinions are reason enough as to why they are not being taken seriously.

See, recently Wendy "Khaleesi" Davis made a twelve hour filibuster against a Texas ordinance that would have closed essentially every Texas abortion clinic. Now, the editors mention that this bill is primarily intended to improve the safety and cleanliness of these clinics, especially given the horrific Gosnell story that the media has been covering with mixed success. I don't think that's unfair, however the people behind the bill (i.e., Rick Perry) are as concerned with that as much as they are with obliterating a woman's right to an abortion in a very obtuse manner, which is where the problem lies.

Look, I get where the pro-Life people are coming from. Really, I do. It would be a great thing if the abortion rate was at zero; you get no argument from me. However, believing that you can legislate the problem away is incorrect. Just look at Romania when they tried to do just that---or, rather, what happens to women when they are denied an abortion with the very plain consequences. Forcing a woman to unwillingly carry a child that she cannot care for

So, yes, pro-abortion advocates can be reasonably called women's rights activists, as they are fighting against women falling into a demonstrable decline in the quality of their lives. This is something that I really find difficult: bellyaching about how abortionist supporters "don't care about about unborn women" when pro-choice activists are fighting hard to keep women from enduring a situation that will not end well either for the mother or for the child.

I take very, very great offence at conservative Christian's complete unwillingness to do anything constructive to do anything to reduce abortion rates. And I do not mean taking an iron fist approach to obstruct a woman from receiving one. I mean, to ensure that abortion is not an option, to provide some choice. I mean acknowledging that economic reasons are often the most important ones when a woman considers an abortion. Women who can afford to take care of an infant will be least likely to consider an abortion.

We are living in very trying economical times. If a woman cannot afford the considerable financial costs of caring for a child, she is going to terminate her pregnancy, especially if the difficulties of reentering the working world are too great. Countries that actually provide significant maternal care for mothers have low abortion rates. Why aren't pro-lifers working on that?

Also, women who are informed about reproductive health and have access to birth control are going to be less likely to pursue abortions, and avoid the situations where a termination of a pregnancy becomes an issue.  I don't mean hyping abstinence to the nth degree, as there is no evidence that doing so will work. None. Teaching young adults about birth control and how their bodies work reaps far more benefits than hammering into kids "just don't do it."

But we can't do that, can we? It's both theologically and politically impossible. Beyond the pale. Granted, the Bible is a little sketchy on the abortion issue itself. A firm approach to abortion guarantees that abortions will continue; and laws only slightly removed from The Handmaid's Tale will make the problem immeasurably worse. Tacitly or overtly, Christian conservatives favour policies that will scare people off from enacting them, and cause more problems than they solve if enacted. For that, they have my contempt.