Why the pro-life movement seems to be losing

With Tuesday’s election results in Ohio and Virginia seen as a referendum on the pro-life movement from pundits across the political spectrum—a point that was reiterated in Wednesday’s Republican debate—it’s understandable that many are feeling discouraged. After all, it took nearly fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade but abortions have actually increased since that monumental decision.

Moreover, the expansion of abortion options has won in every state that has voted on the subject, a trend that is likely to continue across the coming years. Given that roughly 69 percent of Americans support at least some access to abortion during the first trimester, perhaps we should not be surprised. However, that support wanes quickly once you get beyond those first twelve weeks. As Dr. Jim Denison discussed earlier this week, a majority actually oppose abortion in the second (55 percent) and third (70 percent) stages of a pregnancy.

If that’s the case, though, why have so many of the new laws enshrined a right to abortion that far surpasses popular opinion? And, more importantly, what can we do to reverse that trend?

The answer is, at its core, quite simple. However, it does not appear to be one that many in the pro-life movement want to hear.

Why a national prohibition against abortion will never happen

When the issue of abortion was raised in Wednesday’s Republican primary debate, Nikki Haley remarked that to change federal law, “It’s going to take 60 Senate votes, the majority of the House, and a president to sign it. We haven’t had 60 Senate votes in over a hundred years. We might have 45 pro-life senators. No Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democratic president can ban these [more restrictive] state laws.”

And she’s right.

I believe life begins at conception and would love for there to be a national prohibition against abortion. But it’s simply not going to happen, and there is no path to making it so anytime soon. But, as Haley noted, that goes for the pro-choice side as well.

This will remain an issue for individual states to decide, and that’s for the best. It may not feel like it as we watch state after state make it permissible to kill the unborn, often even when the child could survive outside the womb. But the truth is, we should want this issue to remain with the states because that’s the level of government where we can have the greater impact. After all, in a democracy your vote is worth more in elections where fewer votes are cast.

So how can we do that?

It starts by shifting our focus from politics to people.

Choose people over politics

Saying our focus should be on people rather than politics does not mean ignoring the latter. But it is much easier to change a single mind through conversation and dialogue than it is to change the politics of an entire party.

Moreover, there is good evidence that many of those who support abortion—particularly in the second and third trimesters—have either not given the details of that position a great deal of thought or do not understand all that it truly entails.

You see, during the first trimester, the methods most often utilized in an abortion are undoubtedly tragic, but they are not necessarily barbaric. However, that ceases to be the case once you get to the second trimester and beyond. (A word of warning: The rest of this section contains graphic descriptions of abortion procedures.)

As the fetus grows to the point that it is too large to simply suck out of the womb, the most common method of terminating the child’s life is called dilation and evacuation. After the mother is put under anesthesia, abortion providers go in with “suction and gynecological instruments” to empty the uterus.

Or at least that’s how it’s described by most clinics.

The truth is that those “gynecological instruments” are used to dismember the fetus in the womb, typically while the child is still alive, and then pull him or her out piece by piece. The “fragmented fetal parts” are then rearranged to make sure none were left behind.

Roughly 95 percent of second- and third-trimester abortions—which account for approximately 11 percent of all abortions—utilize this method. Moreover, “leading authorities” have concluded that it is typically not worth the added risk to the mother to kill the child prior to beginning the procedure.

Does a fetus feel pain?

Initially, this approach was justified by arguing that a fetus cannot feel pain until after twenty-four to twenty-five weeks of development, meaning that dismembering the child while it was still alive did not cause it to suffer. That is still the official position of many abortion providers.

However, more recent studies have shown that, at the very least, there is reason to doubt those conclusions. As Dr. Bridget Thill writes, “Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester,” with indications that a child may be able to feel some form of pain after as little as seven to eight weeks in the womb. She goes on to conclude that “denial of fetal pain capacity beginning in the first trimester, potentially as early as 8–12 weeks gestation, is no longer tenable.”

And she is hardly alone in those conclusions.

Ultimately, the possibility exists that every fetus who is killed after fifteen weeks—and possibly long before that—feels the indescribable pain of his or her abortion.

I want to believe that most people who support the availability of such abortions do not fully comprehend all that their position entails. And I want to believe that, if they did, they would stand against such barbarism.

After all, if a slaughterhouse butchered cattle the way abortion clinics kill many of these babies, they would be shut down in a day. While people may have honest disagreements about the value and humanity of an unborn child, I would hope that we could agree that a fetus has at least as much inherent worth as a cow.

The pathway to true change

The good news is that every law that has been passed to protect abortion can be changed to protect children instead. But those laws aren’t going to change until we can change the minds of the people who voted to pass them.

So if we truly want to make a difference on this issue and save the lives of unborn children, we need to focus on telling people the truth about abortion in a way that doesn’t shy away from the hard realities of all that it entails, but which also shares that message with the grace and love of Christ.

And remember that, regardless of what the laws say, every expectant mother makes her own decision about whether to keep or kill her baby, and we don’t need politicians to make a positive impact in their lives.

So let’s start by actively trying to engage with people who see differently on this issue. A great deal of common ground currently lies fallow because both sides often seem more interested in demonizing the other than working together. And while I fully understand the hesitancy to give any ground when it comes to protecting unborn lives, let’s not sacrifice those we can save in the process.

Ultimately, if we really want to make a difference in the fight to save unborn lives, we have to start with people over politics and accept the reality that there is no quick fix on a national scale.

This article gets it right by focusing on people but then pitches the same tired notes that don’t land.

Where’s the positive case for being pro life, from the point of view of

1. A girl who’s been raped by family members
2. A woman without a family to support her
3. A woman with no independent income
4. A woman who can’t afford the healthcare

As long as the pro life movement can’t be bothered to come up with compassionate options to resolve those problems, and is totally fixated on getting a live birth then screw what happens to the mom and baby afterwards, abortion will be in high demand.

Ban 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions but only do so when there are comprehensive and palatable alternatives.

Speaking as a child who got adopted after the cult my mom raped when she was fourteen, I can tell you right now that treating her like the evil one while protecting the community that rallied behind her rapist ruined not just her life but the lives of the family she built after escaping the community.

Of course I don’t support abortion but I would’ve supported her being rescued from her abusers and given the tools to rebuild her life after becoming a mom at the age of fifteen. But instead the serial abuse led to herbeing treated worse than a criminal because she got pregnant.

Thankfully the laws changed over thirty years ago here in the UK so these days anyone in her position now would be treated with compassion and rescued; it’d be her abusers in the dock.

But even so there’s still too much victim blaming in cases like that, and some girls get the abortion because the consequences for them of not having one are far more terrifying.

They might know their abusers don’t want anyone to find out that they raped a girl until she got pregnant. There’ll be cover-up, secrecy, and the girl might herself be killed.

Or maybe she knows she won’t be able to keep the baby, or raise it, even if she wants to, unless someone can get her out of the toxic situation. But if all she’ll get from sanctimonious pro lifers is a lecture and some graphic fliers, it’s useless to her. So where else can she go?

And that’s why there’s always going to be a demand for abortion in the most harrowing cases. Absence of hope leads to limited and desperate choices.

You need viable alternatives to eliminate the desperation that leads to the abortion route, and sanctimonious lecture / graphic descriptions of what late term abortion looks like, ain’t gonna cut it.

It’s no surprise. We’re developing the most selfish, narcissistic, entitled, sociopathic generation of women that has probably ever existed. They all believe they’re a “10” while believing most men are a “3”. They all think they deserve the top 5% of guys, go after the same Chad’s, then wonder why none of them will commit to them - when there’s a line of the same type of women a mile long. Then they wonder why they’re single at 35. Most men are just discarded. This isn’t good for anyone.

So why *wouldn’t* they have an abortion? They’ve never been educated about what really happens and have had it reinforced, a thousand times, that it is “just a clump of cells”, or worse, a “parasite”.

Now the D’s wipe the floor with us on the issue, all while attaching “trans rights” clauses to these bills that strip parents of rights (hide the transition from the parents).

I’m NOT INTERESTED in forcing this issue into “legal vs. illegal”. IMHO - we must use “sex ed” to be EXPLICITLY GRAPHIC about what happens during an abortion, including video and pictures. Show a 2/4/8 week fetus. Show it struggle int pain when being dismembered. Show the brain being crushed and sucked out and then arms and legs being cut off. Give a 16 year old a baby kitten, with its eyes closed, and tell them to kill it (ok, not really suggesting this but...).

The point is, they’re shielded from the reality of what actually happens. If they saw the pain and struggle of a BABY most young girls will understand this is wrong...but we let the left control the education system, they’ll never do this.

So long as the myth of “it’s just a clump of cells” or that it is a “parasite” is allowed to stand, young women will just shield themselves from reality and do it....and they’ll also be single issue voters that will win D’s elections.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.