What would make for a good prolife org (controversial)

[Burris]

An information sheet - "Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide" - was released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012. Not surprisingly, abortion is no less likely to occur in countries where the procedure is illegal than in places that allow termination legally.

The most important difference is back-alley chop-shops that appear when abortion is illegal are unsanitary death traps. (Indeed the infamous exploits of Kermit Gosnell, whose clinic, though located in an area where first trimester abortion is legal [or so I've read], chose to operate in the same way as an underground clinic would - allegedly including acts that crossed the line between abortion and infanticide.)

Obviously, shutting legal clinics would do nothing to stop abortions, Such would only drive the practice into shadow.

And people who dare argue back-alley abortions are a legitimate "punishment" despite the killing of both fetus and woman are not pro-life. They've crossed the line between genuinely wanting to save life and merely wanting to punish women for having sex. (This is why so many allegedly pro-life organizations oppose the use of any contraceptives at all - because they don't really care about babies or women; they care about control.)

Of course most of you knew this, and more,. This is why I'm cheating a little on a freelance assignment by asking a couple of questions on FJ:

1. Would someone who supports legal abortion but actively counsels against it be pro-choice? (And yes, the person would provide information on where to get an abortion.)

2. What would a truly pro-life organization look like to you? (The more specific, the better.)

IMPORTANT: While the answers themselves will not appear in the final draft, some of the recommendations might.

[browncoatslytherin]

just a quick answer from me, but a truly pro-life organization would not simply assist a woman after she discovers she's pregnant and is weighing options, or help her until the baby's born and maybe provide minimal assistance afterwards. a true pro-life organization will help coordinate with state and county organizations to maximize the child's nutrition intake, provide clothes and school supplies when needed, and ensure a good education. THAT is what pro-life should be about, making sure all children are equipped for their life no matter what their circumstances, not just support the mother until the birth and throw some coupons at her afterwards and send her on her way.

[2xx1xy1JD]

A truly pro-life organization would:

1. Recognize that it is impossible to help a fetus without having regard for the circumstances of the pregnant woman and realizing the obvious fact that they are a package deal.

2. Ensure that any pregnant woman has all the support that she needs during the pregnancy to carry the child to term, if she wishes to do so. This includes:

- shelter

- nutritious food and prenatal vitamins

- emotional support

- practical support including things like home care and day care if a woman has a high-risk pregnancy

- legal and safety support for women facing violence/abuse

- proper medical care including access to specialists

- addiction support where needed

3. Provide some of the necessities for young children

- safe baby care items

- education

- support groups for new parents

- home visits

- links to other supportive services

- stipends if needed

- child care

- financial counseling and vocational training

I've seen a few homes/services for young mothers. Many started off as religious homes for unwed mothers, then changed to help teens who planned to parent their babies. I've dealt with their clients and they do good work.

http://www.massey.ca/

http://therose.ca/

http://www.rosaliehall.com/

I also know of two organizations in Israel which say that they focus on services to women contemplating abortion for practical reasons (like finances) and which also claim that they do not lobby or protest against abortion. I like the fact that the focus is on the needs of the mother and family, and not on protesting. I know that there's been some controversy with Efrat, and I haven't seen first-hand how they operate with clients, so I'm not giving a total endorsement. I'm just saying that the model, as described in promotional materials and fundraising talks, makes sense and is something that I would support. In a nutshell - in Israel, women who want an abortion make a request through social workers who ask the reason for the abortion referral. These social workers are given information about these organizations, and they will ask a pregnant woman who indicates that her reasons are financial/practical if she wants a to be put in touch with one of these organizations. So, the organizations are only dealing with women who feel pressured by finances into abortion, but who are open to an organization that can help them.

http://www.justonelife.org/about.asp

http://www.efrat.org.il/english/about/?id=67

[alba]

A truly pro-life organization would:

1. Recognize that it is impossible to help a fetus without having regard for the circumstances of the pregnant woman and realizing the obvious fact that they are a package deal.

2. Ensure that any pregnant woman has all the support that she needs during the pregnancy to carry the child to term, if she wishes to do so. This includes:

- shelter

- nutritious food and prenatal vitamins

- emotional support

- practical support including things like home care and day care if a woman has a high-risk pregnancy

- legal and safety support for women facing violence/abuse

- proper medical care including access to specialists

- addiction support where needed

3. Provide some of the necessities for young children

- safe baby care items

- education

- support groups for new parents

- home visits

- links to other supportive services

- stipends if needed

- child care

- financial counseling and vocational training

I've seen a few homes/services for young mothers. Many started off as religious homes for unwed mothers, then changed to help teens who planned to parent their babies. I've dealt with their clients and they do good work.

http://www.massey.ca/

http://therose.ca/

http://www.rosaliehall.com/

I also know of two organizations in Israel which say that they focus on services to women contemplating abortion for practical reasons (like finances) and which also claim that they do not lobby or protest against abortion. I like the fact that the focus is on the needs of the mother and family, and not on protesting. I know that there's been some controversy with Efrat, and I haven't seen first-hand how they operate with clients, so I'm not giving a total endorsement. I'm just saying that the model, as described in promotional materials and fundraising talks, makes sense and is something that I would support. In a nutshell - in Israel, women who want an abortion make a request through social workers who ask the reason for the abortion referral. These social workers are given information about these organizations, and they will ask a pregnant woman who indicates that her reasons are financial/practical if she wants a to be put in touch with one of these organizations. So, the organizations are only dealing with women who feel pressured by finances into abortion, but who are open to an organization that can help them.

http://www.justonelife.org/about.asp

http://www.efrat.org.il/english/about/?id=67

Those Israeli organisations sound like a really good idea!

I was going to say pretty much the same things as you've said, with the added stipulation that a truly pro-life organisation would support measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy so that fewer women are put in the position to even contemplate abortion.

[AmazonSugarPie]

An information sheet - "Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide" - was released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2012. Not surprisingly, abortion is no less likely to occur in countries where the procedure is illegal than in places that allow termination legally.

The most important difference is back-alley chop-shops that appear when abortion is illegal are unsanitary death traps. (Indeed the infamous exploits of Kermit Gosnell, whose clinic, though located in an area where first trimester abortion is legal [or so I've read], chose to operate in the same way as an underground clinic would - allegedly including acts that crossed the line between abortion and infanticide.)

Obviously, shutting legal clinics would do nothing to stop abortions, Such would only drive the practice into shadow.

And people who dare argue back-alley abortions are a legitimate "punishment" despite the killing of both fetus and woman are not pro-life. They've crossed the line between genuinely wanting to save life and merely wanting to punish women for having sex. (This is why so many allegedly pro-life organizations oppose the use of any contraceptives at all - because they don't really care about babies or women; they care about control.)

Of course most of you knew this, and more,. This is why I'm cheating a little on a freelance assignment by asking a couple of questions on FJ:

1. Would someone who supports legal abortion but actively counsels against it be pro-choice? (And yes, the person would provide information on where to get an abortion.)

2. What would a truly pro-life organization look like to you? (The more specific, the better.)

IMPORTANT: While the answers themselves will not appear in the final draft, some of the recommendations might.

A truly pro life organization would have to equally oppose the death penalty, drone strikes and warfare in general.

[August]

Truly anti-abortion would spend scads of money on research into new and better contraceptives, they'd also provide free birth control to anyone who asked and have extensive sex ed campaigns.

Truly pro-life would spend a lot of time and effort abolishing the death penalty, reducing war, instituting universal healthcare and welfare policies. True welfare would remove the incentive for many abortions, as well as valuing life.

[nastyhobbitses]

A truly pro-life organization would do intensive research into why women get abortions, and get at the root causes, which include, among other things, poverty and a lack of education and support for special needs children (which often goes hand in hand with poverty). They would lobby to create more family-friendly work environments and policies that help working moms balance their lives so they don't have to choose between providing for their children financially and providing for the emotionally. They would fight for programs that lift people out of poverty and make sure they stay out of it. They would also lobby for universal health care, which includes good prenatal care and post-natal care, along with nutrition support for moms and babies. They would also spend money to research contraceptive methods and make sure that sex education focuses on teaching both men and women about healthy relationships and to make decisions right for THEM, not decisions based on peer pressure, and about the importance of consent, so that maybe some future sexual assaults can be prevented. They would also spend lots of money on research on congenital and genetic conditions and lobby for better special education programs and disability access, so that special-needs babies, such as those with Down Syndrome, and their families, will have a network of support and good medical care from birth onwards. They would fund programs to teach men and women in developing countries (and developed ones) about safe contraceptive and family planning techniques.

But it's so much easier to claim that you "survived" Roe v. Wade despite the fact that your mom very much wanted to carry you to term.

[16strong]

I'm not responding to the original post. I'd just like to recount an argument my mother had this week with one of the Good 'Ol Boys at her office. It went something like this:

Mom: Pro-choice

GoB: Pro-life

Mom: You have always made your pro-life beliefs very clear, but why have you never expressed an interest in helping the women and their children after the birth?

GoB: Because that should be the job of their church. :angry-banghead:

[Mama Mia]

I think a good pro-life organization should provide as much tangible, practical support as they possibly can. First to meet immediate needs - but even more importantly, as part of linking the mom to long-term resources and help. Whether the help that is needed is financial, emotional, vocational...whatever the individual woman feels she needs. Ideally, offering affordable housing and childcare, with associated counseling and support groups IF they want to participate. I think individualized supports are really important. Some people really just need /want financial help. While others might be more concerned about being emotionally overwhelmed and need respite care or parenting classes. Others might want both.

I understand people's points about being truly " pro-life" should include a variety of other political and philosophical beliefs -- but on a practical level that broad of an agenda doesn't generally translate well to direct service organizations. Unless of course it's funded by Bill Gates or similar.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I would agree that teaching the basics of family planning goes along with being pro-life. It's one thing to be open to pregnancy because you want to have children and are prepared to have and raise them. It's another thing to fail to prevent pregnancy because you have no real idea of how to do so, subscribe to myths or magical thinking, or have no tools to negotiate these things or say no. People need to know how to use birth control effectively - to know that some antibiotics counteract birth control pills, to know that Vaseline weakens condoms, to know that withdrawal is not reliable, to know that "counting days" is the most common birth control method among Catholics with 8 kids, to know that using multiple methods properly dramatically reduces the odds of unplanned pregnancy.

Article showing that in the Netherlands, abortion rates are lower despite abortion being legal and accessible, primarily because contraceptive use is high.

http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/the-dutch-paradox/

Attitudes toward sex and sex education is a big part of the huge gap between American and Dutch abortion rates. In the United States, particularly in more evangelical areas, there is a strong message that premarital sex is wrong - but not much done (apart from lecturing) to prevent it. When those kids do have sex - and the studies show that purity pledgers do it just as much and just as early as others - they don't consciously think about the decision in a logical, rational way. Slipping up in the heat of the moment is seen as less of a problem, even though it is more likely to lead to earlier sex, regrets and poor use of birth control.

[nolongerIFBx]

I think a good pro-life organization should provide as much tangible, practical support as they possibly can. First to meet immediate needs - but even more importantly, as part of linking the mom to long-term resources and help. Whether the help that is needed is financial, emotional, vocational...whatever the individual woman feels she needs. Ideally, offering affordable housing and childcare, with associated counseling and support groups IF they want to participate. I think individualized supports are really important. Some people really just need /want financial help. While others might be more concerned about being emotionally overwhelmed and need respite care or parenting classes. Others might want both.

I understand people's points about being truly " pro-life" should include a variety of other political and philosophical beliefs -- but on a practical level that broad of an agenda doesn't generally translate well to direct service organizations. Unless of course it's funded by Bill Gates or similar.

I very much agree with this. I do volunteer at a pregnancy resource center but before I began to volunteer, based in large part because of the opinions expressed by many on this board, I did check out how far the center followed each woman into their pregnancy. It is not "too bad, you're pregnant, don't kill your baby" but they do, in fact, help during and post pregnancy providing help talking to parents, parenting classes (including proper diet and infant CPR), supplies (cribs, diapers, clothes, etc), bringing in someone from the county to discuss work assistance programs, and directing the women/couples to resources that they will be eligible for. Yes, the main goal is to prevent abortion, but as soon as that goal is accomplished, the women aren't abandoned to deal with the pregnancy and child-rearing without help. And those who do choose to abort are not treated badly and, based on the fact that they will come again with their next pregnancy, I don't believe that they feel judged in any way. It is faith-based, but no one forces the women/couples through the door--they are aware is is faith-based-- and no faith is forced on them if they choose to take advantage of any help offered to them.

However, as the poster above said, the issue is much too broad to also take on the environments that can contribute to the desire for abortion on the charitable giving of the few who are pro-life and also back that belief with charitable giving.

[Mama Mia]

I would agree that teaching the basics of family planning goes along with being pro-life. It's one thing to be open to pregnancy because you want to have children and are prepared to have and raise them. It's another thing to fail to prevent pregnancy because you have no real idea of how to do so, subscribe to myths or magical thinking, or have no tools to negotiate these things or say no. People need to know how to use birth control effectively - to know that some antibiotics counteract birth control pills, to know that Vaseline weakens condoms, to know that withdrawal is not reliable, to know that "counting days" is the most common birth control method among Catholics with 8 kids, to know that using multiple methods properly dramatically reduces the odds of unplanned pregnancy.

Article showing that in the Netherlands, abortion rates are lower despite abortion being legal and accessible, primarily because contraceptive use is high.

http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/the-dutch-paradox/

Attitudes toward sex and sex education is a big part of the huge gap between American and Dutch abortion rates. In the United States, particularly in more evangelical areas, there is a strong message that premarital sex is wrong - but not much done (apart from lecturing) to prevent it. When those kids do have sex - and the studies show that purity pledgers do it just as much and just as early as others - they don't consciously think about the decision in a logical, rational way. Slipping up in the heat of the moment is seen as less of a problem, even though it is more likely to lead to earlier sex, regrets and poor use of birth control.

I agree about the importance of good sex education and easy, free access to a wide range of birth control.

One area I really wish there was more cross-over in education is in the same agencies providing both hormonal birth control AND comprehensive training in natural family planning. While most women/young girls I've known opt for birth control pills or Depo shots -- some have horrible side effects and can't use those methods. But the NFP classes don't tend to be offered at the clinics, so that option isn't as readily available, they intend to use barrier methods...and end up with another baby.

I don't live in an area where pre-marital sex is considered wrong. But I also don't recall either in my generation, or my kids, that there was a whole lot of logical planning involved with losing your virginity. The average age was probably about 15 , of the people I'm close enough to know. I think that's one reason why EARLY, and frequent, sex ed and ease of access to comprehensive birth control is so important. I don't think your 8th grade teacher handing out condoms is going to influence the decision to have sex one way or the other. But actually having a condom right there in your pocket or purse means it might actually get used if teens make an impulsive decision. And hearing every year since 6 th grade that you can go get free, confidential, birth control at x clinic, with an address, means the teens are more likely to follow up by getting reliable birth control and using it. Or if, ideally, there is a clinic right there at the high school-- kids are much more likely to get and use birth control.

In my area I've seen a definite decrease of awareness of birth control methods , anatomy, just...basic knowledge regarding sex with young people who have gone to middle school/ high school since " No child Left Behind" . I don't think the lack of sex ed, here, is due to conservative attitudes -- it's due to budget cuts and only focusing on subjects that are on state mandated tests. I know that there are other reasons for lack of sex ed in other areas.

And when sex ed gets cut down to just the minimum, that's when you lose out on important info like you mentioned regarding Vaseline and antibiotics. Let alone states where they don't cover anything. At all.