|
Author
|
Topic: Abandoned at Birth
|
Harpyr
Newflake Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010
|
posted February 16, 2005 11:17 AM
  
Universal Press Syndicate
02.14.05 Abandoned at birth
Do some conservatives love fetuses more than babies?
by Cynthia Tucker
At least Sonny Perdue, Georgia's governor, practices what he preaches. A conservative Christian and an opponent of abortion, Perdue and his wife have matched word with deed over the years by volunteering as foster parents who take care of abused or abandoned infants.
But there isn't much of that going around. There has long been an odd cognitive dissonance in the anti-abortion movement, a strange disconnect of values. Many family-values-loving conservative Christians are staunchly opposed to programs that would help poor children get health care or day care or decent housing. It is as if they adore the child still inside the womb, but despise him as soon as he comes screaming into the world. With the re-election of President Bush, many conservative Christians believe they are close to their goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade. And in GOP-dominated legislatures across the country, there is a renewed zeal to roll back reproductive freedoms. In Georgia, GOP legislators have introduced a repugnant bill that would not only require a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, but would also require medical personnel to give women scientifically dubious information -- that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. But the same Georgia Legislature, facing budget constraints, is also busy cutting or squeezing programs that would help a poor mother to raise her child if she decides against abortion. One example is the state's landmark PeachCare program, which provides health care to children of the working poor. Although the waiting list is long, Perdue himself has proposed curbing growth in the program, so it will accept few additional children. President Bush, who says he "values life," exhibits a similar cognitive dissonance. Though he is expected to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to overturning abortion, his new budget takes a sharp ax to programs that would help poor children -- including public housing programs and public health. Few of the nation's best-known evangelical Christians emphasize social justice for the poor. That makes self-proclaimed "progressive evangelical" Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, stand out. In a recent critique of Bush's budget proposals, he noted that the "cost of deficit reduction is mostly borne by those least able to bear the burden -- the lowest income families in America, rather than by those most able to afford it." But many conservatives would dismiss Wallis' argument as "class warfare." Five years ago, political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel, a professor at Claremont Graduate University, published a book -- "Is the Fetus a Person?" -- that examined state policies throughout the country, comparing their restrictions on abortion to their support for poor children. She found that the states that imposed the most restrictions on access to abortion were also those that put the least money into health care or day care or housing assistance for poor children. "Pro-life states are less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children. Their concern for the weak and vulnerable appears to stop at birth," she wrote. So if conservative Christians are going to insist on lecturing pregnant women before they get access to abortion -- frightening them with grim tales of future emotional distress -- they should also counsel them on the realities of raising a child with few financial resources. The brochure might read something like this: "If you are poor and you keep this child, you won't have the money for decent day care. You'll have to choose between paying the electric bill and buying antibiotics for your child's ear infection. And don't even think about opening a savings account to pay for his college education."
IP: Logged |
TINK
unregistered
|
posted February 16, 2005 11:52 AM
One of my all time favorite examples of hypocrisy.  If the day ever comes that one of these right-wing, political, so-called Christians does or says anything even remotely reminiscent of the Christ, I will eat my shoe.IP: Logged |
Eleanore
Moderator Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 01, 2005 12:57 AM
You know, it is odd that whenever I've had someone argue with me over my views regarding abortion, the subject of adoption has been brought up by them. For example, "Instead of killing her baby, she should put him/her up for adoption." I understand adoption is a choice many women choose to make and I cannot even imagine how difficult it must be for the majority of them to make it. But whenever I've asked the person I'm arguing with if they've adopted or plan to adopt, the subject is quickly changed or avoided, or brushed off with something like, "I have children of my own to take care of" or "there are plenty of other people out there to adopt kids", etc. Statistics prove otherwise ... there are many more children up for adoption than will be adopted. However, it must be a problem for everyone else but certainly not for the people I've had these discussions with in my personal life. In fact, aside from my parents, I don't know any anti-choicers who have ever adopted or volunteered to be foster parents for orphaned children. Also, aside from my parents, I don't personally know any anti-choicers who are supporting of programs such as WIC or medicaid or any other programs generally designed to help lower-income mothers/families who opt neither to abort nor put their children up for adoption. "They should've kept their legs closed" is the remark I've heard most. Yes, perhaps they should have. But repeating that isn't going to magically provide food or medical attention for the child they chose to have, nor will it provide food or medical attention for the countless other children who will be born to low-income mothers/families if the right to choose an abortion is taken away. So you shouldn't terminate a pregnancy you know you can't afford but it's ok for your child to suffer most if not all of his childhood without proper medical attention or nourishment that you know you can't afford either since those programs are "worthless and designed to keep lazy people poor" and, of course, "you made a mistake (a child) and now you (and your child) have to suffer for it". (Yes, the quotes are arguments I've actually had people dish out while discussing this very subject.) It boggles the mind, it really does, this form of "compassion". Granted, I realize that not all anti-choicers feel this way. I'd sure like to meet some.
***
Tink
I doubt your sole will be in danger any time soon. ------------------
"This above all:
to thine own self be true,
And it must follow,
as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false
to any man." - Shakespeare IP: Logged |
Secret Garden
unregistered
|
posted March 02, 2005 01:38 AM
I'm an anti-abortionist but I aint like that Eleanore!  I reached my conclusion after extensive research and a couple of courses in Contemporary Philosophical and Moral Issues. I could type out the reasons that appeal to me most but I'm kinda lazy right now so yall will have to ask if you're interested. Usually theres little to no response to big-arse posts anyways so I'll only supply if there's demand. Ahh the economist in me  IP: Logged |
Eleanore
Moderator Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 02, 2005 03:38 PM
Woohoo! That makes 3 including my parents.  Seriously, though, I understand that a lot of Federal programs like Medicaid need an overhaul and I'm all for making necessary programs better but I know plenty of people who think there should be no aid whatsoever available to poor families at all. You know? That attitude is just so strange to me. I keep trying to understand it but it doesn't make sense. Especially not when it's coming from people who assert that they care so much about "the children". (I mean, children need a lot more than just to be born.) And also not when it comes from people who are supposed to be believers in and followers of Jesus Christ. He was very much about helping your fellow man, giving to the poor, etc. What gives?------------------
"This above all:
to thine own self be true,
And it must follow,
as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false
to any man." - Shakespeare IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
