Might I humbly recommend the latter? You’ve organized a group of people who did the impossible. Post-Roe, the pro-life movement has a choice: to continue to live within the two-party system and define itself by this or that party’s agenda, or to break free from it. Our political parties provide vehicles to work through, but shouldn’t come to define our worldview or put limitations on how to advocate for the common good. (And on a Venn Diagram, the overlap here would be considerable.) The two-party system’s positioning on abortion and support for families perfectly encapsulates the point. His message was to Christians, but it could easily apply to the pro-life movement more broadly. According to recent Pew polling, Americans who think abortion should be illegal in all cases tend to be Republicans (67%), and those who think it should be legal in all cases are overwhelmingly Democrats (81%). They increasingly gathered within it, especially as Democrats became more extreme in their abortion views. Pro-lifers found a vehicle in the Republican Party to advance their legal agenda in recent decades. Quite simply: Our two-party system doesn’t have a place for the full expression of the pro-life cause. Why does the current pro-life lineup largely stop at birth and feel one-note politically? Wade, was kindled by liberal New Deal activists who saw themselves in a battle for human rights, advocating on behalf of those defenseless in society, with a diverse group of colleagues across political, racial, and religious divides. The beginning of the pro-life movement in America, according to Daniel William’s book, Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. They also demonstrated a distinctive commitment to the poor and racial justice and radical gender inclusivity by any secular measure of the day. Christians also spoke out against gladiator battles, in which captured foreigners and slaves fought to the death against each other and animals. Who’s marching for them? Who’s advocating for their families’ protection and support post-birth, the needs of which surpass what is currently given philanthropically and extend to public policy issues like job protection and our social safety net more broadly?įor those familiar with the pro-life movement both in the early church and the movement’s American founding in the early 20th century, it was rooted in a broad whole-life ethic.īut according to Hurtado, early Christians’ distinctive concern for life extended beyond infant care. And then there are all the women who never would have considered abortion and went ahead to deliver a baby but who lack the support they need to flourish, who also are living on the edge economically, relationally. But by focusing only there, especially in a post-Roe environment when the rate of abortion has dramatically been curbed, there’s a bigger story that’s not being told: that for each of the babies saved this year, there’s a mother who previously thought she didn’t have what it took - financially, relationally, socially - to raise a child. To be sure, there’s debate to be had about where to draw the line.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |