Pro-life, or just pro-fetus?

I’ve wanted to flesh out the definition of “pro-life” for quite a while now, and haven’t done it because I get frustrated so easily.  I’m not going to do it completely in this one post either; I just want to comment about a conversation I’ve been involved in on Facebook today.

A FB friend posted this status update earlier in the day:

My thoughts on the Hobby Lobby thing:

(1) Amazing that a company whose customers are primarily women would choose to side against women.

(2) Hobby Lobby’s not being required to provide contraceptives to their employees; they’re required to provide insurance which includes contraceptive coverage.

(3) Forcing their beliefs on their employees doesn’t do a very good job of representing either Christianity or freedom.

(4) Morning after pills do not abort. Morning after pills block implantation.

(5) People still have their freedom of religion. Why, you ask? Because HL is not a religious institution. It’s merely a crafting company that happens to be owned by a religious dude who employs a group of people who hold a variety of beliefs.

(6) Do Christians really want this kind of action to win? Do they want to run the risk of having to abide by their employers religious belief system? Some religions don’t believe in blood transfusions, others don’t believe in mental health doctors and medicine, and some don’t believe that addiction should be treated medically. Some religions even believe that going to the doctor equals not trusting God.

(7) Finally, I am sick of conservatives complaining about their money funding abortions and/or contraceptives and how that goes against their beliefs. They don’t stop to think that my money goes to support the death penalty and war which are things I don’t believe in because of my religion.

I can only assume that this update was based on this article, or one similar to it in my friend’s area:

After losing a last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court, craft stores chain Hobby Lobby said it would defy a federal healthcare mandate requiring employers to provide their workers with insurance that covers emergency contraceptives.

The Oklahoma City-based chain, owned by a conservative Christian family, had applied to the high court to block a part of the federal healthcare law ordering companies to offer insurance that covers contraceptive drugs, including the so-called morning-after pill.

After the court refused to block the mandate, a lawyer for Hobby Lobby said the Green family, which also has holdings in Mardel Inc., a seller of religious books, would nonetheless refuse to provide health coverage for contraception it considers to be abortion-inducing.

Hobby Lobby and Mardel could be fined as much as $1.3 million a day starting Tuesday.

“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”

His comments were issued in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the Green family said certain types of contraception, such as the morning-after pill and the week-after pill, violated family members’ religious beliefs against abortion.

The morning-after pill has spurred heated debate, especially among politicians, on whether using it constitutes abortion. The National Institutes of Health says on its website that the pills most likely work by preventing pregnancy “in the same way as regular birth control pills.”

Personally, I value life. I am as pro-life as someone can get. Which is why I think it is wrong that businesses try to opt out of covering certain things on insurance plans. If Republicans believe that not covering contraception makes them look more pro-life, they are absolutely wrong. People are still going to have sex, and some women will get pregnant from that because they don’t have appropriate contraception. So by not allowing these women to have their contraceptives covered, the rate of unintended pregnancies increases.

It’s really easy to be pro-fetus: we have to protect our most innocent citizens.  They are innocent, and cute, and sometimes you even get to see a fetus sucking his thumb on an ultrasound.  But arguing for the right of a fetus to be born does not make one pro-life.  It makes one pro-fetus.

And this is the point that many “pro-life” arguments fail.  If you are against abortion, great.  But if you are also against insurance coverage for babies once they are born, or making it easier for a low-income family to feed their children, or helping to raise a family out of poverty, or mental health benefits for people who are at-risk of committing crimes, or in favor of the death penalty for people who commit murder, then you are not pro-life.  You are pro-fetus.  Please quit calling yourself pro-life, because those of use who are cradle-to-grave pro-lifers resent being mixed up with you.


About faithenvironmentcollide

Child of God. Follower of Christ. Wife to Jeff. Mom to Liam. Environmental steward. Writer. Reader. Researcher. View all posts by faithenvironmentcollide

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: