Pro-life and Pro-refugee (NYT)

I am an evangelical Christian, and central to that is my belief in the sanctity of all life — a belief that, like millions of other evangelicals, I have expressed through my opposition to abortion. Over the past 40 years my wife and I have joined silent prayer walks and have given to crisis pregnancy centers. We have written to our elected leaders, debated with friends and family who disagreed with us and sought to influence our culture to value life at every stage, especially those not yet born.

But in recent years, I have come to realize that being pro-life requires more of me. My compassion and my advocacy must mature into giving equal care for the young mother who carries that child. I can no longer persuade myself that the birth of the child is the end of my pro-life agenda. I must be “pro” everything needed for that child not just to be born, but to flourish.

This man gets it. It continues to horrify me that a segment of the pro-life community tends to think that being pro-life stops at the waters’ edge.

While it doesn’t say anything new, articles like this should be required reading for every politician who claims to be ‘pro-life’ while doing little or nothing actually to help children who have already survived the horrendous gauntlet of legal abortion.

I personally don’t know anyone in the pro-life community that thinks the pro-life issue ends at the water’s edge. Apparently this person did, so I am sure they are out there.

I don’t think anyone really believes that the pro-life issue ends at the water’s edge, but says this to ease their own conscience about supporting pro death candidates.

The person in the article seems to have thought that at one time. Perhaps fake news then? Or maybe a poor characterization of the pro-life movement which is clearly not a ‘stop at the water’s edge movement’ nor has it ever been for a vast majority of it’s adherents?

Probably true for many people. The other version i’m sure we’ve come across is asking why if Pro-life people are in favour of children why aren’t they voting for an increase in taxation to spend on poor kids.

Basically it is the ugly Progressive thinking that if you don’t agree to helping people the way I want them to be helped then you are a bad person.

It seems these people never think why spending other people’s money should be the measure of how much you care.

Mixing one’s religious duty with the politics of taking other people’s money to spend by a secular state in ways in which Progressive will dictate is a really big question that religion is facing right now. I think we really have to disentangle our religion from the right to spend other peoples money and the right to castigate those that disagree.

This is certainly not the way of Jesus.

Wow, something from the NY Times that actually uses the term “Pro-Life” instead of “Anti-Abortion”. So, the former pastor of a mega church is allowed ($) by the federal government to resettle refugees ($) can opine that there are those that are pro-life but pro-immigration pause have dirty hearts. Maybe it is time for the IRS to investigate this former mega church pastor ($) and find out what the heck is going on ($). Maybe breaking some human trafficking laws too, perhaps ($)? :wink:

The notion of “other people’s money” is misleading. There are many things that are done with taxes. They are all using “other people’s money” in the same sense. How do you distinguish this particular effort from all other actions done with public funds? Or are you ideologically opposed to the very concept of public funds?

The fact is, public funds may be used on whatever the public decides, through its legitimate authority, to do with it.

I think we really have to disentangle our religion from the right to spend other peoples money and the right to castigate those that disagree.

Well, then, I guess we can’t fund an agency that looks into the practice of abortion clinics. Because that would be entangling our religion with the right to spend other people’s money.

Well, I certainly don’t think it’s “ugly progressive thinking” to question why the cost of childbirth has gotten so obscenely expensive. And why, if life begins at conception, why can’t unborn babies be claimed as dependents? I never see either of these addressed by “pro-life” people, yet more accessible prenatal care has always been talked about by “progressives.”

Don’t be surprised if the media eventually segues away from “anti-abortion” to “pro-birth.”

Here, here :thumbsup:

How much should childbirth or prenatal care cost? What’s stopping you from providing the care at the cost you think appropriate?

Under most circumstances, unborn children can be claimed as dependents. If you give birth in December, for example, you can claim the child as a dependent for the entire year.

How much should it cost? $300-$500, max, lower than the cost of abortion. And maternity leave should be longer, in line with European nations. I never hear maternity leave mentioned with “pro-life,” either, which is a puzzlement to me: Why are so many Republicans against extended maternity leave? It’s like we punish women who choose life. I’m glad I’m pro-life and not just “pro-birth.”

Is it safe to assume that the $300-500 figure isn’t actually based on any knowledge of what it costs to provide maternity services, but just a number that sounds “fair” to you? In any case, an abortion is always going to be cheaper than having a child. The costs of maternity services are not a significant part of the cost of raising a child to adulthood except in very extraordinary circumstances…

Discussing European policies, given how low the birth rates are in European countries, none are at replacement level, why do you think that is a good model to follow? If you claim to be pro-life, shouldn’t you advocate for policies that actually increase the number of living human beings rather than policies that have, in practice, significantly reduced the birth rates?


You haven’t been paying attention then.

Well, I would be more likely to pay attention if there some March For Life speakers addressing maternity leave and lower delivery costs. Adoption, including adoption by gay couples? There weren’t any. Accordingly, you’re correct: I have not been paying attention. I do know that even WITH insurance, delivery costs are still way too high and are a direct contradiction to the state’s interest in protecting the unborn: the most logical (to me) “life” issues - prenatal care & delivery costs, maternity leave, adoption - aren’t really known as “pro-life” issues.

Pro-life has always been very clear in its meaning. That is, until those that seem to want to ease their conscience for their blind support of the pro death party…so they have tried to change the meaning to include other issues.

Pro-life = no to killing the most innocent while in the womb.
Pro-death = about anything else.

The other issues are separate and absolutely need to be addressed by both parties. Unfortunately, the pro-death party is defined and unmoving.

Very true. WIC programs as well.

To call it “pro birth” is only further rhetoric to distract from the reality that it is just wrong and nothing will ever make it right. I’m sick of hearing it. At least it’s better than ripping a small, defenseless fetus (actually a very tiny child) to shreds, then carelessly throwing her away in a literal wastebasket and calling her “medical waste.” Just because a child isn’t born into a sparklingly ideal situation does not mean anyone has the “right” to viciously destroy her. It certainly can’t be an “over population” issue. When they are creating fake fetuses and killing off real ones, it kind of kills that argument, doesn’t it. I find the whole anti life pro death mentality very…very strange.

There are many ways of being pro-death just as there are many ways of being pro-life.
There are several issues the 21st Pro-life movement needs to deal with to be effective in the future.
Abortion has now been around for almost 45 years. That’s nearly half a century. Like it or not, it has become part of the world landscape. Even if abortion ended tomorrow, the damage is done. It cannot be reversed.
As a result of that I fear, the pro-life movement in this country has become desperate. In identifying itself with a particular party (Republican) and a particular candidate (Trump) they may very well have signed their own death warrant. This is no longer the 1970s or 80s.
We now live in a society that has been ‘at war’ for 16 years. We now kill people with drones attacks. We have more police shootings than I ever remember. We blink and say ‘ain’t that too bad’ when an unarmed kid is killed.
We have more mass shootings than I ever remember. Our police have become militarized. We think it’s great idea to start a new nuclear arms race. We turn our back on poor refugees. Our favorite TV show is The Walking Dead. Our favorite movies depict the most gory violence ever seen on screen.
And yet we say we are ‘pro-life’.
Perhaps, abortion is not the disease. Perhaps its a symptom of a much larger problem.

It most certainly is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit