Pro-life view on abortion
This is a response to the article, “No Uterus, No Opinion” in Kaitlyn Akers’ column from a recent issue of Le Provocateur. For those who may have missed the article, Akers’ topic was focused on the issues surrounding the pro-life and pro-choice debate. Anyone who read the article can tell that this was an article inspired by a deep desire to help women from a pro-choice perspective. As people also deeply concerned with the welfare of women globally, we felt the need to respond with a pro-life perspective.
Akers mentions the movement to defund Planned Parenthood inspired by videos showing Planned Parenthood doctors and executives participating in some shady activities, such as the selling of fetal tissue.
While judicially the issue has been settled, there was a bill that was proposed to defund Planned Parenthood as it was presented to have been using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions that didn’t involve rape or incest.
According to the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, the millions of dollars that go to Planned Parenthood would have been redirected to other women’s health facilities that do not provide abortions. Other abortion facilities would be completely unaffected and Planned Parenthood would still be capable of carrying out their work as well, likely to a lesser degree.
The population of women in need of services would be able to find any resources they need, just maybe not from Planned Parenthood. The smaller and more local health facilities can even offer resources at a much lower price, if not free for these women.
All of these services will still be offered to women if the bill is passed. However, what kind of need in our society will arise if Planned Parenthood stops performing abortions?
Akers is right; there needs to be a fundamental change in society before abortions can be taken away completely.
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we can safely assume that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged,” said 19th century author Mattie Brinkerhoff.
We have roughly 2,500 pregnancy resource centers (outnumbering abortion clinics by about 700) in the United States, but we will need more. We will need to improve our adoption system so the process is smoother for all involved. We will need to provide more resources on college campuses so that a woman does not need to choose between her child and her education, and much more.
A woman should have the right to make decisions about her own life, but when a woman is pregnant, it isn’t only her life to be considered. Why not make the options so much better that abortion doesn’t need to be on the table? What about the rights of the life growing inside of that woman?
In a crisis pregnancy, we need to recognize that the crisis is not the child, but rather the situation that the expecting mother is currently dealing with. The true pro-life perspective is not one that is about denying women, but empowering them to make a decision that is best for both them and their child.
This sounds like a lot of work. But isn’t it for a worthy cause? Women and their unborn children deserve to live in this type of society where both lives will be cherished and respected.