Being Pro-Life in a Pro-Abortion State

By Peter Wolfgang Published on July 19, 2018

It is what we pro-lifers have dreamed of for 45 years. And it raises some thorny questions for those of us — like me here in Connecticut — who are pro-life activists in pro-abortion states.

Now that President Trump will be filling a second vacancy on the Supreme Court, the court may finally overturn Roe v. Wade. That will not mean the end of legal abortion. It will mean that the issue has been returned to the states, some of which are pro-life and some of which are not.

What can pro-life activists in pro-abortion states hope to accomplish in a post-Roe world, where it would be legally possible to restore the right to life of the unborn but politically impossible? And what does “pro-life” even mean under those circumstances?

What “Pro-Life” Doesn’t Mean

Let’s start with what pro-life doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean this: “Boughton said he was ‘personally pro-life,’ but said that abortion is a personal decision for a woman.”

Obey God, Not Man

From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities, but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men.”

In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused.

“They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God.” It is precisely from obedience to God — to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty — that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born.

It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints.”

— Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae

That is the Hartford Courant quoting Mark Boughton, the mayor of Danbury and one of five candidates running in the Republican primary for governor of Connecticut. Despite saying the magic word, Boughton is actually revealing here for the first time that he is not pro-life. But to know that, you have to know a little history.

To be pro-life is, by definition, to want to restore legal protection to the unborn. If you do not share this goal, you are not pro-life. To be pro-choice is, by definition, to support the legal right to kill an unborn child. Some pro-choicers view abortion as a good and some view it as an evil. But they all support a woman’s legal right to abort her child.

That is where the political battle line on abortion has been drawn for 45 years: Should it or should it not be legal? That is a political fact that the pro-abortion movement has spent 45 years trying to obscure.

The Key Pro-Choice Moment

The key moment in this effort was an infamous speech given by Mario Cuomo, the pro-abortion Catholic governor of New York, at Notre Dame University in 1984. He said that, as a Catholic, he was “personally” pro-life. But because he was a governor in a pluralistic society, he could not “impose” his own morality on his fellow citizens. Therefore he must support abortion rights.

Pro-abortionists hailed the speech. They thought it was brilliant. It protected their central goal — keeping abortion legal — while hopefully fooling pro-life voters into thinking that pro-choice politicians were really pro-life.

Most pro-lifers saw through it. It is because they were not fooled that we have arrived at the present moment, where we may now be on the cusp of securing the deciding vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Connecticut’s pro-lifers should not be fooled either. When Mayor Boughton says he is “personally pro-life” but “that abortion is a personal decision for a woman” he is really saying that he is not pro-life.

“I’m against abortion but I would never interfere with someone else’s decision” is a common sentiment among moderate pro-choicers. That is essentially what Boughton is saying. But by adding the Cuomoesque “personally pro-life, but” he is hoping pro-lifers won’t notice.

Mayor Boughton claims to be pro-life. He is not.

Facing It Head-On

Still, where does that leave pro-lifers in states like Connecticut, where — even in a post-Roe world — restoring complete legal protection to the unborn seems virtually impossible?

The Courant reported the answer of another Republican candidate for Governor — one endorsed by the political action committee with which I am associated — this way: “[Tim] Herbst said, ‘Roe vs. Wade is codified in our statutes. … That’s not going to change here in the state of Connecticut.’”

Herbst is stating the current political reality in Connecticut. I said the same thing to the Associated Press a few days earlier. It is a grim reality for pro-lifers in pro-abortion states. But it is better to face it head-on than to be misled by pro-choice politicians claiming to be pro-life.

It is hardly the end of the discussion. It is the beginning of one.

Never Stop Trying

We may need fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade. It may take another fifty years to overturn pro-abortion laws in states that are still pro-abortion.

Pro-lifers in those states should never stop trying. Again, to be pro-life is by definition to want to restore legal protection to the unborn. Politics is the art of the possible. That is all pro-lifers in pro-abortion states are attempting to do right now: whatever is possible.

In Connecticut, that means passing a parental notification law. Ours is one of only a handful of states that do not require an underage girl to even notify her parents before having an abortion.

In Connecticut, a minor needs her parents permission to get an aspirin at school or to get a tattoo. She doesn’t need it to get an abortion. Many who disagree with us on the underlying issue of abortion nonetheless agree that this is wrong and will work with us to pass parental notification.

Pro-Life Issues

Those are the sort of issues we should identify and work on: Issues that build consensus across the pro-life/pro-choice divide while moving the culture in a more pro-life direction. That is how pro-lifers on the front lines did it for 45 years and it is how we pro-lifers who are “behind enemy lines” must continue to do it after Roe v. Wade is overturned.

It will mean working with politicians who do not share all of our goals. It will mean passing laws to limit some evils while, in the short term, leaving other evils in place.

But blue state pro-lifers can do it all with a clear conscience, bearing in mind that Pope St. John Paul II said so in paragraph 73 of his 1995 pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae. And we can do it with the confidence of a pro-life movement that — please, God — will have already overturned Roe v. Wade on the national level.

If pro-lifers can do that, we can accomplish a lot more. Let’s not wait for that magic day to arrive. Let’s get started right now.

 

Peter Wolfgang is president of Family Institute of Connecticut.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Rob Abney

    May God continue to bless your work there in Connecticut.

  • DG

    The Connecticut legislature may never prohibit abortion. But if the matter is made a referendum issue that the people of Connecticut can decide, an education campaign utilizing graphic pictures of abortion could convince people that abortion should not be encouraged by permissive abortion law.

    • Boris

      Rights are not decided by majority rule. They are guaranteed by the Constitution. Abortions were not only legal when the Constitution was ratified they were openly advertised . If the Founders wanted to make abortions illegal they surely would have. It wasn’t an oversight, it was a belief in a nation founded upon rights. Before you vote again find out how our government actually is supposed to work.

      • The General

        Doris, you sound bored. Take up needlepoint.

        • Boris

          You sound stupid. Take up reading.

          • Juan Garcia

            Could you cite some sources that prove abortion was legal and advertised in the founding era?

          • Boris

            1821 Connecticut passed the first law in the United States barring abortions after “quickening,” which were usually performed by administering poison to the woman after the fourth month of pregnancy.

          • Juan Garcia

            Thank you. I’ll do my own research on the topic. I’ve studied the founding era pretty extensively but I don’t recall this topic being addressed.

          • Kevin Quillen

            you do realize, don’t you, that we know considerable more now. Like DNA. Life begins at conception.

          • Women are people

            No. Life starts to begin at conception. The same way I can start to make a cake by mixing the ingredients. Until I bake it, it’s not cake; it’s batter.

            Lumber yards don’t sell acorns as trees. Dress makers don’t give you silk worms instead of dresses.

            This is not a difficult concept.

      • philfouthirteen

        The Founding Fathers were apparently okay with slavery too.

        The problem with your rights argument is you have a second human being with rights as well.

        • Boris

          You can call a fetus human if you like. However that doesn’t change the fact that no one has the right to another person’s body. Rights have to be considered as a whole. We cannot give rights that conflict with with another person’s rights. You have to be born first before you can be granted citizenship. Your right to swing your fist ends at the edge of my nose.

          • Kevin Quillen

            so then you are ok with abortion up to birth. At the moment the sperm and egg unite, all the DNA is present for a unique, individual person. Human life at conception. My duty to protect a baby not stop at your nose.

          • Boris

            Conception doesn’t happen in a moment. It takes a few days. It isn’t your duty or any of your business when a woman decides to get an abortion. I’m okay with the abortion laws the way they are which means late abortions are illegal unless the fetus has expired or the woman’s life is in imminent danger. You don’t give a rip about the unborn and we all know this. Your only concern is that you believe American Jesus is going to punish the United States for making abortions legal and of course for the teaching of evolution as well. You are also afraid that when you die you will meed Jesus and he will tell you, “I never knew you. You didn’t do enough to save those babies. You’re selfish and only concerned about yourself and you KNOW it. We all do.

          • gladys1071

            You have to go thru me and my uterus to stop me from terminating a pregnancy.

            Since i own my uterus, you have no business sticking your nose in it.

            How far are you willing to go to stop a woman from having an abortion, are you willing to chain her up for 9 months?

            Do you want to create a registry of all pregnant women?

            prosecute women that might perform self-abortions or have heavy periods?

            You cannot force a woman to stay pregnant that does not want to be, since it her body doing the gestating? you cannot make continue gestating. What part of that do you NOT understand?

          • Kevin Quillen

            Once abortion is again properly made to be illegal, with the overturning of the horrible Roe v Wade decision, then women who kill their baby should be prosecuted. I hope that day comes soon, and think it will. It will be a great day. Would you disobey thew law?

          • gladys1071

            Roe vs. wade will not accomplish what you want. Abortion will still be legal in many states

            women will just travel there.

            Are you for prosecuting miscarriages too? are you for calling the police on a woman with a heavy period?

            bring it on sister, i will fight you tooth and nail to preserve women’s rights!

      • DG

        Slavery was legal. Taking recreational drugs was legal. So what? Legality does not constitute a constitutional right.

        • Boris

          The Constitution does not ban abortions. It could have been different. The marijuana laws have been ineffective because most people will not obey laws they think are unjust. Like the marijuana laws, laws against abortions were equally disobeyed and equally ineffective. Making abortions illegal only makes them more dangerous, it doesn’t reduce the number of abortions. People who want to ban abortions need to tell us all why their personal ideology is more important than public safety.

  • RC5

    I would actually consider

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Yes, and you would see a brain drain as young people opted to move to states that allow women to have control of their bodies.

      • Kevin Quillen

        not sufficient reason to fail to protect innocent babies. We must do the right thing no matter what cost.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          The road the Hell is paved with good intentions. So, what cost are you willing to pay? Seems to me the anti-choice crowd is anti-woman and anti-sex. You don’t give a damn for kids once they are born. You just want women to be baby factories.

          • Jim Walker

            Then tell the strong feminist women to insist on wearing triple protection.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            How about I tell the strong feminist woman that they are independent human beings who have the right to control what happens to their bodies.

            Oh, right, I don’t have to tell them, they already know this fact. So I’ll tell you that they are independent human beings who have the right to control what happens to their bodies.

          • Jim Walker

            ” they are independent human beings who have the right to control what happens to their bodies.”
            Then they should know to protect themselves and not get pregnant. If they do get pregnant, be responsible and not kill a living human being just so they can get on with their lives and selfish lifestyles.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            No, what part of “control over their bodies” do you not get?

            It’s 2018. Women are people, and not possessions. Stop acting that way.

          • Jim Walker

            No, you don’t get it. Abortion are for people who don’t take responsibilities. If they want to have full control over their bodies, they can. Its 2018, there are so many methods to “protect” the women. Women are intelligent so stop acting as if they are not.

          • gladys1071

            abortion is a form of taking responsibility, birth control can and does fail, it is not a 100% guarantee.

            Woman still own their bodies even after becoming pregnant, they still own their uterus.

          • Jim Walker

            “abortion is a form of taking responsibility”
            You call that responsibility ? to whom ? herself ? her husband ? her job ? her lifestyle ?
            Your uterus is not your own when you are pregnant. Its a safe space for a baby to grow. I can’t believe your selfishness level.

          • gladys1071

            yes, my uterus is my own, pregnant or not, I have the right to be selfish with my body, it is called freedom, something that you seem to hate.

            You don’t get to determine what parts of my body are mine.

          • gladys1071

            If i don’t want to continue being pregnant, i don’t have to.

            since i own my uterus, i get to determine if stays occupied or not?

            Does that make sense to you?

          • Ann Morgan

            **Your uterus is not your own when you are pregnant. Its a safe space for a baby to grow. I can’t believe your selfishness level.**

            Really? Then you’d be good with the woman removing her entire uterus, and putting it in a box? There. Now she’s not taking the uterus away from the fetus, is she? Or does the fetus own the rest of her body, too?

            How about this: You want the woman to ruin her life, and that of any thinking, feeling born children she might have, for the sake of mindless cells, so that you can have a fetal fantasy that you’ll forget about 2 seconds after the head pops out. Frankly, I can’t believe YOUR selfishness level. Demanding that OTHERS give requires a million times more ‘selfishness’ than mere refusal to give on your own part.

          • gladys1071

            Hey Ann,

            Nice to see your posts again.

          • Jim Walker

            Its really silly to read this .
            Hope one day you will discover the truth. Peace out.

          • gladys1071

            Ann raised a legitimate point. You are denying a woman ownership of her own uterus.

            Her uterus belongs to her all the time , it never belongs to the embryo or fetus.

            You really do not understand how you are denying women the rights to her own body by your position.

          • Ann Morgan

            What truth? That it is selfish for pro-lifers to dance and party and demand that the innocent siblngs have their lives ruined? How is that NOT selfish? Do the siblings of Down’s fetuses not have rights of their own? Or do pro-lifers have extra special rights?

          • Ann Morgan

            Wow! A woman can prevent Down’s syndrome from occurring, because if she wants to have full control over her body, she can! Who knew! Apparently nobody else in the world. Can you tell me the secret method of this that only you are privy to? It’s probably worth BILLIONS! I want to patent your method. I’ll even split the profits 50-50 with you!

          • Jim Walker

            Who are you to decide whether a Down’s Syndrome human being to live or die ?

          • Ann Morgan

            Let me put it this way: The existence of a Down’s individual will require extreme sacrifices on the part of people other than the parents, usually the siblings. Unless YOU are rushing to give up your family, your career, your sxx life, your friends, in order to provide 24-7 care for Down’s individuals once the parents die, so the siblings will not get stuck with it, you have by your own actions shown that you prefer that Down’s fetuses be aborted, rather than your giving up your party life, so you no longer have any moral right whatsoever to object to what the parents do with them. The ONLY way you might possibly salvage this right, and still retain the fetal fantasy, is if you showed pictures of Down’s adults tossed onto the street once the parents die and loudly, proudly, and unambiguously state that THAT is what the pro-life party stands for. But as long as you demand that the innocent siblings must make sacrifices, while failing to do so yourself, you have no moral right to object to abortion. Or even ‘murder’.

          • Jim Walker

            I feel your bitterness of which you have explained here but that does not justify, not even close, to murder the baby in the womb.
            Will you accept the government allows anyone to euthanize their (un)loved ones?
            We are better than that.
            I don’t think we can agree so let’s agree to disagree and stop here. Peace out!

          • Ann Morgan

            Here’s the thing:

            1. Unless YOU are rushing to take on the burden of the siblings, you have forfeited the moral right to say what is, and isn’t ‘justified’. By your failure to make the real sacrifices, your actions are saying: “YES! It IS JUSTIFIED! To prevent inconvenience to ME!” Any lip service you pay to the opposite notion is just public Pharisee praying. Your actions show your real opinion.

            2. No special rights for fetuses. Anyone else who cannot get the consent of the use of someone else’s body must suck it up and die, regardless of whether it is ‘justified’ or not.

            3. When you want to make a moral argument, you must be willing to explicitly and unambiguously state and accept both necessary pre-requisites of that argument, and any results. For instance, if you make the argument: Black people have as much value as White people, an absolutely necessary prerequisite of that argument is that you must be willing to state something along the lines of: The melanin content of human skin has no moral significance, and one amount of melanin is not more valuable in a moral sense than a different amount of melanin. If you insist that different amounts of melanin have different moral values, then YOU can’t truthfully make the argument: Black people have as much value as white people, regardless of how cute it sounds for you to say that. Other people may be able to truthfully make that statement (If they are willing to accept the prerequisite), but YOU cannot. Now, in this case, you are trying to equate killing a mindless fetus with killing thinking, feeling people. An absolutely necessary prerequisite to equate those two things, would be a belief on your part that the human mind has no value. Are you willing to state here and now: “To me, Jim Walker, the human mind has no value or moral significance.” If you cannot make that statement here and now, you don’t believe your own premise, and all you have are whimpers, not actual arguments.

            4. You must also explain why it is, that when pro-lifers are diagnosed with that DS fetus, what was previously a ‘precious baby’ when other people were in that situation, for 80% of them, suddenly morphs into ‘mindless cells’, and they make a mad rush for the nearest abortion clinic. Why is it suddenly ‘justified’ for 80% of pro-lifers when they are looking at the real sacrifices on their OWN part, and the part of their OWN children, rather than merely demanding it of others?

            **Will you accept the government allows anyone to euthanize their (un)loved ones?
            We are better than that. **

            What you mean here, since you are not rushing to save the fetuses by making the real sacrifices on your part, is that YOU are not better than that, but you demand that others be, because you are a special snowflake.

            **I don’t think we can agree so let’s agree to disagree and stop here. Peace out!**

            You mean you are running out of room to hide the sheer and utter hypocricy of forced birthers, who demand that the completely INNOCENT SIBLINGS make sacrifices, while forced birthers enjoy their party life, and will gladly let the fetus be killed rather than give up their own party life. Finding excuses to stop debating when you run out of weasel room is not some new and brilliant debating technique. I’ve seen it literally hundreds of times before.

          • Ann Morgan

            Well, apparently YOU are someone to decide whether a Down’s fetus lives or dies. You could save one tomorrow – if you were willing to give up every bit of happiness in your life and agree to provide 24-7 care for it until you die of old age, in exchange for the mother not aborting. You are not willing to do that, so you are deciding that the fetus should die, rather than YOU being ‘merely inconvenienced’.

            Do you feel that giving up your family, your friends, your career, and your sxx life is too much to ask of you? Is that why you won’t do it?

          • Jim Walker

            If only you can read your own posts and be able to see your own bitterness. I do hope you can find peace by seeking God. This is my last response. May you find God one day.

          • Ann Morgan

            And I notice you are not rushing to give up your own nice life, to take care of a disabled person 24-7, so the siblings don’t have to. Strange how pro-lifers coo and gush about the beauty of the sacrifices, and offer their verbal sympathy for the ‘bitterness’, but when it comes down to actual action…. the only thing they actually do is parade their holiness on the internet, and demand that OTHERS – never them, experience the sacrifices and bitterness, and the thanks they give to the ones who are making the REAL sacrifices is to spit in their faces, as you just did to me with your snippy little comment about ‘bitterness’. Do you think you are fooling anyone over the age of 6 with your hypocricy and spoiled little party life?

          • gladys1071

            “selfish lifestyles” who made you judge of other people’s lifestyle?

            You cannot force a woman to stay pregnant that does not want to stay pregnant, and that is her perogative.

            Who do you think you are to tell others what to do in the most intimate of decisions like a pregnancy?

          • Jim Walker

            A pregnant woman has her flesh and blood, a living human being having a totally unique DNA from her. If she insist to abort her child, she is being extreme selfish.
            To each his own.

          • gladys1071

            what part of you cannot force me to stay pregnant or any woman against her will , do you not understand?

            Yes to each his/her own, you don’t get to dictate to a woman that she has to gestate

          • Ann Morgan

            ‘Selfish Lifestyles’? You mean like the 100 million pro-lifers who demand that the INNOCENT SIBLINGS of Down’s fetuses give up any hope of a normal life, so that the pro-birthers can enjoy their ‘selfish lifestyles’ rather than step up and make the real sacrifices?

            When I see the 100 million pro-lifers stepping up and giving up their family, their friends, their sxx lives, and their career, in order to provide 24-7 quality care for the disabled, so the INNOCENT SIBLINGS of Down’s fetuses don’t have to, then and only then may they play the ‘selfish lifestyles’ card regarding others. Not before.

            Oh, and if you want to continue to pretend the fetus is morally equivalent to any other ‘human being’ I also need you to flat out and unequivocally state for the record that to you, the human MIND has no moral value or significance. Otherwise, you are merely making nonsensical whimpering noises.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “Seems to me the anti-choice crowd is anti-woman and anti-sex. You don’t give a damn for kids once they are born. You just want women to be baby factories.”
            Assume much? Honest Lawyer!! Your rhetoric makes a mockery of your name.

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            I’ve defend three anti-abortion terrorists. Two batteries and one attempted arson. Now, I’m an Arab-American who grew up as a Muslim, and the rhetoric I heard from those clients was the same crap you hear from Hamas.

    • gladys1071

      you are right, their would be outcry like you have never heard before. You are talking about violating the a woman’s right to her body, “hell have no fury”

    • Kevin Quillen

      not sufficient reason to fail to protect innocent babies.

  • tz1

    Leave.
    Before the fire, brimstone or whatever rains down, or they just go Zimbabwe/Venezuela.
    And quickly, unless they wish to be pilloried with salt.

  • Kevin Quillen

    It is not a states rights issue. The Constitution of the United States says that there is an inalienable right to life. The question is when is the “fetus” a human. The answer is from conception. Now that we have the understanding of DNA, we know that from the moment the sperm and egg unite, ALL necessary DNA is there for a distinct, unique, individual, and without being killed, will develop as such. Viability argument is invalid because a one year old is not viable either without outside care. We must not stop until this horrible murder is no more! Over 50 million dead babies. God help us.

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      No, that’s the Declaration of Independence. Which is not a legal document.

      This is the level of idiocy we get from the anti-choice side. You lot can’t even learn the basics of our nation’s legal system!

      • Kevin Quillen

        I did err. It is in the Declaration. But, the beliefs were codified in the Constitution. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and pursuit of happiness in the bill of rights. Obviously, murder is illegal. Obviously, to pursue happiness and live in liberty one must be born.
        “this is the level of idiocy we get from the anti-choice side.” I feel privileged to be corresponding with the only person who never made a mistake. By the way, it is not “anti-choice” it is PRO-LIFE, as opposed to PRO BABY MURDER.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          You have no inherent rights as a fetus. Read the constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.

          “Obviously, murder is illegal.” Really? So if you shoot an armed intruder in your home, you are guilty of murder? How about if in the heat of an argument, you strike someone and cause their death?

          The legal fact is we have dozens of way to define an event where one person, through direct or indirect action or willful negligence cause the death of a person.

          And in this nation, abortion is not murder. Focus on lowering the need for abortion and you’ll get results.

          • Kevin Quillen

            I assume that you would have agreed with the Dred Scott decision?
            That was wrong. Legalized abortion was a wrong decision too. It will be overturned. The queer marriage decision was wrong too. They do not always get it right.
            Your murder tirade was stupid. You know what it mens. Lawyer? LOL

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            No, I wouldn’t agree with the Dred Scott case. But it was the law of the land until the 13th Amendment.

            OK, give me the legal basis for saying that the decision in Roe v. Wade was in error. Do the same for Obergefell v. Hodges. Remember, legal basis.

            No, the murder rant comes direct from first year of law school to show that the laws by necessity are a nuanced thing. In California, the first is a justified homicide, the second would be manslaughter. The law is a kaleidoscope and you are arguing black & white.

            I heartily invite you to try to stop people from having sex. You may be a prude, but most of us enjoy our bodies and the urge to reproduce comes in right behind breathing and eating. Every week seems to bring a new sex scandal to a Christian church somewhere in America.

            Try being smart and accept that not everyone is going to follow your twisted faith, and take realistic steps to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

            Do you support open access to contraception? Yes or No.

            Do you support open access to solutions like RU-486 and Plan B? Yes or No.

            Do you support complete religious freedom in the United States? Yes or No.

          • Cynthia

            Well, we could easily eliminate most abortions that are not for medical reasons. Just heavily promote long-acting reversible contraceptives – an implant will last 3 years, a Mirena IUD will last 5 years. The implant is 360x more effective in typical use than condoms.

            We could also address the issue of better supporting pregnant women and parents for those that do get pregnant and want to continue to term.

      • Women are people

        They can’t even learn the basics of biology. They wax poetic about appeals to nature while ignoring that death is totally natural, and ignoring that there is no such thing as an inherent maternal instinct. Females from all species of animals will abandon their offspring, if not outright kill their own young, as to not waste valuable resources on young that is unlikely to survive, or whose investment into them will cause them physical harm.

    • Boris

      “The Constitution of the United States says that there is an inalienable right to life.
      Where is that in the Constitution exactly?
      “The question is when is the “fetus” a human.”
      No it isn’t. The question is whether someone has the right to use another person’s body against their will.
      “Over 50 million dead babies. God help us.”
      How many abortions would have been avoided if abortions were illegal? None. People do not obey laws they think are unjust. Making abortions illegal only makes them dangerous, it does not reduce them.

      • Jim Walker

        “The question is when is the “fetus” a human.”
        No it isn’t. The question is whether someone has the right to use another person’s body against their will.

        This remind me of a distasteful Dumb Blond joke but I’d like to share it anyway :
        Doctor : Congratulations ! you’re pregnant!
        Blond : Err… Doctor, is it mine ?

    • Women are people

      Never in that codified foundation is the right to use someone ELSE’s body to sustain your life. Not even if that person is already dead.

    • Women are people

      “Now that we have the understanding of DNA, we know that from the moment of conception all necessary dna is there for a distinct, unique, individual, and without being killed, will develop as such.”

      No. No. No and no. You have a very ignorant understanding of reproduction.

      90% of all fertilized eggs fail to make it to term naturally. 70% will experience developmental arrest during blastocyst stage and will not implant in the uterine wall. The remaining 25% will die in 1st trimester, 3.5% in the second and 1.5 in the third.

      So stop waxing poetic about dna as if there aren’t millions of replication errors during meiosis that is incompatible with life. You don’t give a second thought to this life, why pretend to care about the others?

      Second, you are making stupid assumptions about conception. You assume that the dna is complete. Often, it is not. They are merely products of conception.

      Holding women hostage to what you fantasize about life, while ignoring the fact that nature is brutal and kills most of the young, is absurd.

      Never mind that you are ignoring the complete, unique dna of a living breathing woman in deference to a something that is unlikely to survive the pregnancy naturally.

    • Cynthia

      You wrote: “Now that we have the understanding of DNA, we know that from the moment
      the sperm and egg unite, ALL necessary DNA is there for a distinct,
      unique, individual, and without being killed, will develop as such.”

      This is simply not true. Meosis and mitosis are a bit more complicated than that.

      For starters, there can be errors in the chromosomes in an egg or sperm. Some of those errors will mean that a resulting embryo is not viable. There can also be errors in the earliest stages of cell division in the embryo. Again, these errors can result in an embryo that is not viable (ie that will never develop into a baby capable of living outside the womb).

      These errors are not rare. Your comment suggests that once fertilization takes place, a baby can be expected to pop out 9 months later as long as the pregnant woman doesn’t do anything to stop it. Sadly, that’s wrong. I’ve been pregnant 6 times – all times were planned and very much wanted, and I followed all the latest medical advice and guidance. I have 3 children. The other 3 times, I had miscarriages. This false notion that a successful pregnancy is inevitable unless the pregnant woman does something to stop it was horrible for my mental health, and caused immense unwarranted guilt and grief for months. Learning that chromosomal errors are the biggest cause of spontaneous miscarriages was so important.

    • Ann Morgan

      **The Constitution of the United States says that there is an inalienable right to life.**
      Really? So if I need your kidney for my ‘very life’, I can strap you down and take it?

    • Ann Morgan

      **The question is when is the “fetus” a human.**. No, that is NOT ‘the question’. There are a great many things which may be ‘the question’. You are asserting the very thing you actually need to prove.

      **Now that we have the understanding of DNA, we know that from the moment the sperm and egg unite, ALL necessary DNA is there for a distinct, unique, individual, and without being killed, will develop as such.**
      Really? So you can show me all the little zygotes in petri dishes that turn into babies? So long as nobody ‘kills’ them?
      And I doubt you understand DNA or how it works, very much. If at all.

  • “It is what we pro-lifers have dreamed of for 45 years.”

    What–see Roe overturned? Why would anyone care about that? If you’re pro-life, you want to reduce abortions. Even if states outlawed abortion, that would just mean illegal abortions.

    The focus on Roe is tangential. If you want fewer abortions, reduce the demand: reduce unwanted pregnancies. You wouldn’t be fighting pro-choice advocates but working *with* them (I know politicians may benefit from strife, but perhaps ignoring them and focusing on the actual issue would be helpful).

    Lots of countries have far lower unwanted pregnancy per capita. What are they doing right? Figure out what that is and duplicate it in the US.

Inspiration
I Wasn’t the Best Choice for a Husband
Mark Davis Pickup
More from The Stream
Connect with Us