If you listen to pop culture these days, you might have the impression so-called pro-choice people have a monopoly on compassion.
After all, the pro-choice crowd empathizes with the mother. She may be pregnant, but she may wish she were not. We all are led to believe no one should be forced to do anything they do not wish to do. We are told that includes mothers who wish not to be pregnant.
She may be young. She might be single. She could still be in school. The pregnant mom might be poor. Possibly her health is fragile. The list of reasons carrying a baby full term would be difficult could go on.
All of these circumstances make the pro-choicers saddened for the mother. They think they are helping her in encouraging her or at least allowing her to abort her baby.
As sad as circumstances may be for pregnant mothers, having their unborn children murdered resolves none of them. A poor mother who goes through with an abortion remains poor. Except now she is poor and has a dead baby.
A high-school girl who becomes pregnant will still be in high school, even if she has her unborn child dismembered within her. You get the idea.
So, while they claim they care about the mother, their prescription to helping her does not fix her circumstances. In other words, encouraging an abortion does not actually help the mother out of her circumstances.
To feel bad for mothers who will face difficult pregnancies is obviously an honorable position to take. It is one everyone takes, though. It is not unique to pro-choice folks.
In fact, pro-choicers would just assume “the pregnancy” be ended. Thus, they do not care for pregnant mothers as much as they think they do. They would rather reduce the number of pregnancies than help those same pregnant mothers out of their circumstances.
Pushing for abortion means encouraging mothers to go against their human nature. Mothers want to protect, nurture, care for, and provide for their children.
The pro-choice crowd asks pregnant mothers to set aside their instincts and to do that which is unnatural and unhealthy. Taking such a drastic action does violence against a mother’s conscience, not to mention her body. Yet, this is what the empathetic pro-choicers champion.
So much for compassion, eh?
Contrast that approach to the position the pro-life cause takes.
Yes, a many women experience difficult pregnancies. But that is why pro-lifers make available a wealth of resources. If only pregnant mothers were aware and would take advantage.
Still need to graduate high school, mom? Great, babysitting and tutoring can be had, if you seek it.
Have little to no money to pay rent and to keep the lights on? Let pro-lifers pitch in.
Need help finding a job? Pro-lifers can assist in that too.
Need a place to call home? Women’s shelters can be found across the country.
You get the idea, again.
Which model of assistance seems the most empowering and helpful to pregnant mothers?
The one that treats the circumstances or the one that ignores them?
Seems pretty clear pro-choicers’ empathy goes only so far. Whereas, the charity pro-lifers have a history of demonstrating has no bounds.
The word ‘compassion’ comes from Latin. ‘Com’ from ‘con,’ meaning ‘with.’ ‘Passion’ meaning ‘to suffer.’ Thus, the word ‘compassion,’ means literally ‘to suffer with.’
What model of aid for pregnant mothers in need seems the most equipped to suffer with mothers?
The one who enters into the suffering and tries to provide a bridge out? Or the one which does not attempt to end the suffering? Only the latter exacerbates the crisis by encouraging death to the innocent child caught in the middle.
You tell me which is more compassionate.
Please share your thoughts below!