Pro-life org. says focusing on poverty is “Shameful.”

Sorry, kiddo, but you’re post-birth. Take a number.


Quoted from a press release posted on a pro-life organization’s website:

“Abortion is an act that takes the life of an innocent human child,” said Erik Whittington, American Life League’s youth outreach director. “It is shameful that Christians would rally around the physical needs of the poor and ignore the deaths of untold millions of babies. Abortion is poverty and the number one priority of our day should be its demise.”

Shameful to rally around the “physical needs” of the poor? Wow.

One question that seems obvious to the sane observer is this: Wouldn’t eliminating poverty reduce the need for abortion and drastically improve the lives of millions of born people? Wouldn’t this approach cut abortion at its source - the need for it? Doesn’t it seem blatantly cruel to advocate forced pregnancy over prevention and a boost to the standard of living for all?

Short answer: yes. Long answer:

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)

As one commenter at Pandagon noted:

When I volunteered for PP, I saw many women come and go. Most of the poor women that came for abortions scrimped, saved, begged and borrowed to pay for it. Most were willing and wanting to use birth control. Not having a car, not having easy access to the clinics during open hours since they work multiple jobs, not being able to outright buy birth control at a nearby pharmacy- many of them were trying and trying really fucking hard to not get pregnant, but birth control access isn’t EASY for poor women. It can be hard enough for regular women nowadays with asshat pharmacists. You’re basically asking poor people to be PERFECT while giving those that have more access and more ability the right to be imperfect. you’re putting MORE burden on the poor, on those that are most likely to be shafted to access of things like education and birth control and educational opportunities.

By saying that the poor should forgo sex if they can’t afford a child, you’re saying that the poor don’t deserve one of the most important elements of human existence- the need for companionship and intimacy.

So why aren’t they pushing to eliminate poverty?

Because, of course, that takes money. A pregnant woman should be forced through hell and high water if it means she stays pregnant, but the average taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay a dime more to ensure that she has adequate access to birth control, health care, and opportunities to further her education and career. Such is justice for this brand of “Christianity.”

Via Feministe.

3 Responses

  1. Melony Louise Says:

    Oh my God, this is insanity. They want to insist that all these children are born, but they don’t want to ensure CARE for any of them!? Or that they’re born into GOOD and ready homes? Again, insanity.

  2. panthergirl Says:

    This is a long-standing problem with the anti-choice crowd. It’s also effective to ask them how many non-white or drug-addicted or non-infant children they have PERSONALLY adopted, when they spout the “adoption not abortion” blather.

    This is utter insanity. But surprising? Nope.

  3. Eric Says:

    It’s more brutal to born babies and leave them to poverty.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.